Sitting of 8 March 1881

MINUTES.
Resolution in Committee—Peace
Preservation (Ireland) [Compensation].
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—
Rotherham, Parkgate, and Rawmarsh Street Tramways (No. 1)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Clonakilty, &c.)* [103].
Committee—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [98]—Second Night—R.P.
Committee—Report—Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment* [16–104].

QUESTIONS.

  LIVINGS (METROPOLIS)—ST. MARGARET PATTENS.
  SIR HENRY PEEKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can explain out it is that the Rectory of St. Margaret Pattens with St. Gabriel Fenchurch, found by the recent inquisition of the Bishop of London to be worth £811 per annum, is entered in the present Clergy List as population 229, value £214; and, whether, in prospect of promised legislation, he will take steps, through the Ecclesiastical or Charity Commissioners or otherwise, to have the correct values of all City livings ascertained, and the result communicated in good time to the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, The Clergy List is not an official publication, and I have no cognizance whatever of statements contained in it. As to the question of promised legislation, I am afraid that it is so far distant that I have not yet begun even to collect materials.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE NORWICH COUNTY COURT JUDGE—MR. ARCH.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the report of a case which appeared in the "Norwich News" of February 26th, in which the Trustees of the Long Strutton District Amalgamated League Sick Benefit Society applied to the county court judge for an order to compel the treasurer of the Society to give up the banking book? In the course of the proceedings, the judge is reported to have asked "if the Society had anything to do with the movement with which Mr. Arch was connected." A reply having been given in the affirmative, he said "he should show no mercy to Arch and his lot, as they were a pest to society;" and, whether he can state if the words quoted were used by the judge; and, if so, whether he would deem it right to ask him to refrain from remarks of this character?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, this is a matter under the immediate cognizance of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. I am in communication with him on the subject, and I hope my hon. Friend will postpone his Question for a day or two.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS— FACTORIES.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is practicable to extend the advantages of the Post Office Savings Bank system, by opening branch savings banks, under the control of the Department, at large factories, when and where wages are being paid, as similar arrangements, even in private hands, have been found to encourage thrift?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the best way in which I can answer the Question of my hon. Friend is to refer to a circumstance which I have the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. M. A. Bass) to mention—namely, that a few weeks since he placed in my hands a proposal from Mr. Clay, a partner in the firm of Messrs. Bass, that a clerk should be sent from the Burton post-office once or twice a week to their brewery, when the wages of the workmen were being paid, with the object of opening on the premises a Post Office Savings Bank, Messrs. Bass at the same time undertaking to defray all the expenses to which the Department might be put. I at once gave most cordial assent to the proposal, and it has now been in operation for some weeks. I can only say that, under the same conditions, I shall be very pleased to make similar arrangements with other firms, so far as the resources of the local post-offices will permit.

  SOUTH AFRICA—KAFFIR PRISONERS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the suggestion which the late Colonial Minister made to the Cape Government, in a Despatch dated October 2nd 1879, that the term of indenture-ship for adult male Kaffirs captured in war should be limited to one year has been acted upon; or whether it be true that since the date of that Despatch Kaffir prisoners have been indentured for a much longer period?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that no Act amending the existing laws of master and servant passed the Legislature of the Cape Colony during the late Session, so my answer to the first part of his Question is in the negative. In reply to the second part, I have to say that no information has reached us, but that we shall immediately inquire.

  POST OFFICE—ASSISTANTS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether he sanctions the extension to such assistants as are relatives of the postmaster, in whose office they are engaged, of privileges which are not accorded to those holding appointments in the service; whether he sanctions the withdrawal, partially or entirely, from telegraph duty of telegraph clerks in offices where the full number of assistants allowed for by the Department is not provided, in order that they may be employed on postal work, and thereby enable the postmaster to dispense with the assistants and absorb their salaries; whether it is not the duty of surveyors, when inspecting offices, to see that the full number of assistants is provided, and none suppressed, and also to see that these are paid at the rate fixed by the Department; does any check exist to make surveyors and their assistants perform these duties; whether he sanctions, in cases where two assistants are allowed for by the Department, the suppression of one, or the suppression of two where three are allowed for; is he aware that the work of the suppressed assistants must be discharged by telegraph clerks, in addition to their own duties; whether, also, postmasters may benefit pecuniarily to any degree by the "assistance" allowances granted to their offices, other than that which they reap by having relatives appointed to assistantships; and, whether it is permissible to postmasters to derive any pecuniary benefit from the allowances made to their offices by not devoting these allowances to the objects for which they are voted?
  MR. FAWCETT: I conclude, Sir, from the series of divisions contained in the Question which has been addressed to me by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that he believes that at some post-offices work which ought to

  543
  be done by the assistants, who are paid out of a lump sum given to the postmasters to provide such assistance, is imposed on telegraphists or other established officers of the Department, and that in this way the postmasters are able to appropriate money which is intended for the payment of their assistants. I can only say that if such practices prevail, I should regard them as grave irregularities, which ought at once to be put a stop to. Such irregularities have not been reported to me. I shall be much obliged if the hon. Member will give me the names of any offices at which he considers that the irregularities in question exist, in order that an investigation may at once be instituted.

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—THE ELECTION COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS.
  MR. RODWELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he can explain the cause of delay in presenting the Reports of several of the Commissions appointed to inquire into corrupt practices at the late Elections; and, whether he will take steps to expedite the presentation of the remaining Reports?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, it would be remembered that eight Royal Commissions were issued in September last year; seven in reference to alleged corrupt practices at the General Election, and one in connection with a bye-election some six weeks later than the General Election. On the appointment of the gentlemen who were chosen to act as Royal Commissioners, he thought it right to call their attention to the fact that legal proceedings could be instituted against persons for corrupt practices within 12 months of the alleged offence. As the Elections were held at the end of March or the beginning of April last year, it was obvious that the Reports ought to be brought under the notice of Parliament a reasonable time before the 31st of March in this year, and it was necessary that the evidence should be placed in the hands of the Attorney General in order that he might peruse it before instituting proceedings. Four Reports out of the eight were already in the hands of hon. Members—namely, Canterbury, Boston, Knaresborough, and Sandwich; but the evidence in respect to Sandwich had not yet been delivered to
  544
  the House. He had made inquiries of the Commissioners from time to time, and was informed that all the evidence, except that of the last two days, was placed in the hands of the printer before Christmas. The evidence of these last two days was placed in the hands of the printer six weeks ago; but it was not yet in the hands of the House, owing to the large amount of work imposed upon the printer consequent upon the early sitting of Parliament. The Oxford Commissioners had not yet reported. Three Reports remained—Macclesfield, Gloucester, and Chester. None of these Reports were yet completely printed, and certainly none of the evidence was in the hands of the printer. He was beginning, indeed, to be very apprehensive that the printing of the evidence would not be completed by the 31st instant, and that no reasonable time would be afforded for his careful perusal of it in order to decide what proceedings should be instituted, as the pressure of work at the printers was very great at this time of the year. He had, so far, perused the Reports which had been laid before him, and had determined what course ought to be taken against certain persons who were reported to be guilty of corrupt practices. He would suggest that the evidence in the cases he had last mentioned should be laid on the Table in manuscript, and he would do what he could to peruse it, in order that there should be no miscarriage of justice.
  MR. HERMONgave Notice that, in consequence of the answer of the hon. and learned Attorney General, he would, on a future day, ask, Whether some arrangement, independent of the Queen's printer, could not be made by which the extraordinary delay in the printing of Parliamentary Papers could be avoided?

  AFGHANISTAN—AYOOB KHAN.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for India, If it is true, as reported in the newspapers, that emissaries have arrived at Candahar upon a mission from Ayoob Khan, and have been received with honour by the British authorities in that city; if there is any reason for supposing that Abdur Rahman will resent the opening of negotiations with his rival; and, if before those emissaries were honourably received, Ayoob Khan had satisfied the

  545
  British authorities that he was not implicated in the murder of Lieutenant Maclean?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is true, Sir, that Envoys have been sent by Ayoob Khan to Candahar on a mission to the British authorities. They have been received with courtesy; but I am not aware that anything that can be described as negotiation has taken place with them. I have already stated that I do not think it would be for the advantage of the Public Service that I should enter into details as to such negotiations. Ayoob Khan has sent more than one communication to the Government of India protesting his innocence in the matter of the murder of Lieutenant Maclean, and his absolute ignorance of it till his arrival at Herat; but I am unable to say whether these protestations have been considered satisfactory by the Indian Government.

  AFRICA (CENTRAL)—THE BLANTYRE MISSIONARIES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has yet received any report regarding the alleged atrocities perpetrated by the Blantyre missionaries; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the evidence taken before the Commission sent out by the Established Church of Scotland to inquire into the conduct of the Blantyre Missionaries has been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique, with despatches which will shortly be laid before Parliament.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— ALFRED AYLWARD.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the person named Aylward, said to be the chief military adviser of Commandant Joubert, the leader of the Boers, is the person known as Commandant Alfred Aylward, who, in November, 1876, succeeded Captain von Schlieckman in the command of the Lydenburg Volunteer Corps, the first body of troops ever organised by the Transvaal Republic; and, whether, as a necessary qualification for such command, he became then a citizen of the Republic; and,
  546
  whether he was not at one time a correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph?"
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, to the first part of the Question I have to reply that I presume that the hon. Member's conjecture is correct. To the second part I have to reply that I have no information whatever upon the point. No light seems to be thrown upon it by the book which purports to have been written by the person to whom the Question alludes. Neither am I able to reply to the third part of the Question of the hon. Member.
  MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can state whether at one time he was a Government spy in Dublin Castle?

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—ISSUE OF MARTINI-HENRY RIFLES TO THE VOLUNTEERS.
  COLONEL WALRONDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to issue the Martini-Henry rifle to the Volunteers at the same time as the other branches of Her Majesty's Auxiliary Forces?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; the issue of the Martini-Henry rifle to the Volunteers will follow its issue to the Militia.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—WITHDRAWAL FROM CANDAHAR.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will give any facilities for the discussion of the Motion relative to the withdrawal of Troops from Southern Afghanistan, of which the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire has given Notice?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am most anxious to meet the suggestion conveyed in the Question of my right hon. Friend, both on account of the weight of authority with which it is put and the subject-matter of the Motion to which it relates; and, therefore, I have no difficulty in saying that the very first time that is at our disposal, and in regard to which we can exercise a free choice, shall be given for the purpose indicated. But, having said that, I am sorry I must add that the present condition of Business in the House places us under most severe limitations unconnected with any matter of

  547
  policy or discretion. As the House is aware, we are desirous to introduce the Irish Land Bill on the first opportunity. That is a question of policy, and, so far, a matter of choice. The other matters to which I must refer are matters of law of a very severe and inflexible character. There are various numerous and important Votes to be taken in Supply, and the very latest day on which the last of those Votes can be taken is next Monday week, the 21st of March. That is the latest day, and, although it is not easy to say how many days the subjects of the Votes will occupy in discussion, yet, making the best calculation we can, we cannot expect to get through them in less than five or six days. Then comes the Ways and Means Act, which must, in order to comply with the provisions of the law, pass the House at the latest not later than March 28, even if that be not too late. There is then the Mutiny Act, upon which it is possible that legitimate discussion may arise, and with regard to which it is necessary that it should pass through this House a considerable time before Easter. These are matters that are perfectly inflexible, to which we must pay the first regard; but, subject to the demands of this particular Business, I will engage to give the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend who has given Notice of Motion the very first day that shall be at our disposal.

  AFGHANISTAN—WITHDRAWAL FROM CANDAHAR.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, before Candahar is evacuated, he will afford the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom, out of whose pockets it is believed that a considerable proportion of the cost of the war in Afghanistan will be taken, an opportunity of discussing the policy of that step; and, if he will postpone the abandonment of that city until such an opportunity has been afforded?
  MR GLADSTONE: Sir, having already given an engagement to afford the best opportunity we can find for the discussion of the subject, I cannot undertake to enter into any other engagement. I do not think, however, that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India expects that any immediate step will be taken.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE BOERS.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of Mr. Kruger's reply to the communication made to him by the late Sir George Colley proving acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, or affording grounds on which peace might be concluded, it will be the intention of the Government, before any terms of peace are finally agreed upon with the Boers, to lay upon the Table of the House all documents bearing upon the negotiations, and to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon? He further asked, Whether the course indicated in the Question he had put would not be in exact accordance with the views strongly expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion with respect to the use and abuse of the treaty-making powers of the Crown?
  MR GLADSTONE: To answer the last part of the Question first, I may say that the course indicated by the noble Lord would not be at all in accordance with the views I have expressed as to the treaty-making powers of the Crown. With regard to the use of those powers, we should always be desirous to proceed in harmony with what we might suppose to be the sentiments of the House and the country; but in a case when it is a question of emerging from a state of actual hostilities, which might again become a state of actual hostilities, in a very remote part of the earth, separated from us by many thousands of miles, to expect us to undertake that no terms of peace or accommodation shall be accepted before they have been subjected to the review of the House is to ask for an engagement into which we cannot enter.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I will, on Thursday, ask him, Whether the necessity for the prompt vindication of the authority of the Crown over the subjects of the Queen in the Transvaal, as expressed in the Royal Speech at the opening of Parliament, still exists, and, if so, whether that "prompt vindication" has been obtained by the battles of Laing's Nek, Ingogo River, or the Majuba Mountain; or whether it has been attained by the invasion by the Boers of the Crown Co-

  549
  lony of Natal, or by the repeated declarations of President Kruger, Commander Joubert, and others, before and since the battles I alluded to, that nothing but the complete independence of the Transvaal would satisfy the rebels?
  SIR HENRY TYLERgave Notice that he would ask, Whether there were any precedents for a Bitish Government accepting an armistice and negotiating as to terms of peace after three unsuccessful engagements with its own subjects, rebelling against authority, with arms in their hands?

  ARMY—THE NEW ARMY SCHEME— THE GUARDS.
  COLONEL DIGBYasked the Secretary of State for War, If, by the new Army scheme, it is proposed to make any reduction or alteration in the number of Officers or Companies in each Regiment of Foot Guards?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; there will be an addition to the number of field officers and a diminution in the numbers of the other ranks in the Foot Guards; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see the details in the Paper which I am about to lay on the Table.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, CLASS III.—GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table of the House details of the sum of £7,587 proposed to be voted for the costs of the prosecution of the Directors of the West of England Bank, and of the sum of £7,230 proposed to be voted for the costs of the prosecution of the Directors of the Northern Assurance Company?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, if my hon. Friend likes to move for it, I shall be happy to lay upon the Table a Return of the expenditure in these cases in the same form as was adopted in the case of the Tichborne prosecution, which will be found in Parliamentary Paper, No. 358 of 1877.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—TRICHINOSIS—IMPORTATION OF PORK FROM THE UNITED STATES.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the alleged fre-
  550
  quency of trichinosis in American and other hams and pork, and of the recent outbreak of diarrhœal disease traced to the presence of infecting organisms in pork at Welbeck by Dr. Ballard, and reported in the "British Medical Journal" of March 5th, he will suggest to the local sanitary authorities throughout the kingdom, to instruct their medical officers to make frequent microscopic examinations of pork and ham exposed for sale?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I believe no case of trichinosis has occurred in this country, and therefore I think there is no real cause of alarm on that score; but still, looking to the prevalence of that disease as reported in other countries, and to the Welbeck case, I thought it right, some days ago, to direct a Circular to be issued to the several sanitary authorities in the country calling their attention to the precautions to be used in the cooking of hams and pork, and also urging them to require of their medical officers especial vigilance in carrying out the regulations of the Public Health Act in regard to the examination of ham and pork exposed for sale. That Circular is in type and will be issued in a few days.

  ARMY—THE NEW ARMY SCHEME— SECONDED AND SUPERNUMERARY OFFICERS.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will endeavour to make clear, in the Revised Statements of the Regimental Establishments which have been promised to be laid upon the Table, the numbers and grades of the seconded and supernumerary officers and their cost, so as to remove the doubts which may naturally be created of more officers being thus provided, in order to make good the numbers which are struck off the fixed establishment with corps?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have had great difficulty in understanding my hon. and gallant Friend's Question; but if he means to ask whether there will be any supernumerary regimental officers on the 1st of July next, when the new establishments will commence, I must answer in the affirmative; and as to seconded officers, I hope to keep the number down as much as possible, but there always must be many. It is prac-

  551
  tically impossible to estimate the exact number on the 1st July; but I will give, at the right time, an approximate detail.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— RUMOURED ARMISTICE.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, between the 26th January, the date of the receipt of the first proposals of President Brand to mediate, and the 27th February, the date of the last of the three reverses with heavy loss of life experienced by British troops, any telegram was sent by Her Majesty's Government to the late Sir George Colley, directing him either to suspend hostile operations or to obtain from Boers armistice, for consideration of "guarantees under which armed opposition would cease" (President Brand telegram, Jan. 29th, page 86, South Africa Papers (C. 2783), 1881)?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will endeavour, Sir, to give the noble Lord an answer in the clearest terms I can command; and in order to make my answer quite clear, I may remind him and the House that, in reply to communications from Mr. Kruger, certain announcements were made to the Boers with a view to a settlement, and Sir George Colley was told to allow a reasonable time for the transmission of those announcements and the receipt of an answer from the Boers. The instructions given for his conduct before the receipt of the answer have already been stated in their full substance to the House; but, further, he was instructed to the following effect—that if the proposal of the Government were accepted, he was in that case authorized to agree to a suspension of hostilities. We have never directed our Commanders to ask for or obtain an armistice; but we entirely approve of the conduct of General Sir Evelyn Wood.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the dates of the communications?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It would, Sir, be rather difficult for me to give them from memory; but I think I stated yesterday that the 16th of February was the date of the instructions relating to the conduct of General Sir George Colley during the interval before the answer of
  552
  the Boers was received, and I believe it was on the 19th—not later—that the instructions were given which I have just explained to the House, when, if the propositions were accepted, Sir George Colley was authorized to agree to an armistice.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the proposal for the armistice with the Boers proceeded from Her Majesty's Representative in South Africa after the knowledge of the defeat of Her troops on Sunday 27th February; and, if so, whether such step had the direct sanction of Her Majesty's Government? He wished also to know, Whether any active steps had been taken to promote an armistice since the 27th of February?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think not, Sir; but, at the same time, I do not like to answer a question of dates, or one involving a matter of dates, without having power of reference. But with respect to the other part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I would only say that I do not wish to be considered as being a party to a statement that the proposal for the armistice with the Boers proceeded from Her Majesty's Representative in South Africa. That is a matter upon which our information may henceforward be fuller than it is at present; but, so far as I am able to judge, I could not affirm that proposition. Undoubtedly, whatever Sir Evelyn Wood has done in becoming a party to the conclusion of an armistice must have been done in full cognizance of what was done on the Sunday.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISgave Notice that, on Thursday, he would again ask specifically, Whether Her Majesty's Government had taken any active steps whatever since the disaster of the 27th of February towards the promotion of an armistice?

  PROVISIONAL ORDERS—MILTON ABBAS.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to take steps to confirm by Parliament the Provisional Orders of the Board respecting the divided parts of the parish of Milton Abbas, in Dorsetshire; and, if so, whether he is aware that it would be in

  553
  direct opposition to the wishes of ninetenths of the ratepayers of that parish?
  MR. HIBBERT, in reply, said, that it was the intention of the Local Government Board to take the step referred to in the Question of the hon. Member.

  LICENSED VICTUALLERS' REGULATION —THE DRAFT BILL.
  MR. HARDCASTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any truth in the statement which appears in the "Standard" of that morning, to the effect that a printed draft of the Government measure for regulating the trade of Licensed Victuallers had, by accident, got abroad; and, whether the account given by that paper of the provisions of that measure has any foundation in fact?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, of late years, a great many printed drafts of a great many subjects have, by accident, got abroad; but I can confidently state that no printed draft of a Government measure for regulating the trade of Licensed Victuallers has got abroad, and for this reason—that there never has been such a draft, and, therefore, it never has been printed.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Prime Minister, Whether the Army Estimates would be brought in on Thursday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, if we finish this Bill this evening, we may take the Report to-morrow, and the third reading on Thursday, so that there will be no possibility of bringing on the Army Estimates on Thursday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 98.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 7th March.]

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 98.]

    SECOND NIGHT.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2 (Power as to proclamation in respect to arms and ammunition).
    MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 30, after "part" to add—
    "Provided. That an interval of not less than fourteen days shall elapse between the date upon which the proclamation is promulgated, and the date specified as that upon which the Act is to come into force."
    The clause under notice proposed to enact that—
    "The Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, may, from time to time, by proclamation, declare this Act to be in force within any specified part of Ireland, and this Act shall thereupon, after the date specified in the proclamation, be in force within such specified part, and any such specified part of Ireland is in this Act referred to as a 'proclaimed district.'"
    The object of the Amendment was simply to provide that the people living in any district affected by any proclamation might have a reasonable time to learn and to understand that the Act had been put in force so far as they were concerned. As the Bill stood at present, the Lord Lieutenant might issue a proclamation to-day, and it would come in force to-morrow. There was no provision for any interval between the issue of the proclamation and its application to the people, notwithstanding the serious manner in which it would affect the rights and liberties of the people. He thought it was of the utmost importance that a march should not be stolen upon the people in such a matter; but that they should have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the fact that the district was in reality proclaimed. He wished, in the first place, to protect them from unnecessary domiciliary visits by affording them an opportunity of giving up any arms of which they might be possessed. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, following up the same spirit he had lately exhibited, would not question the propriety of the proposal, which simply amounted to this—that there should be some protection afforded by the language of the Act against the proclamation of a district taking the people residing within it altogether by surprise.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 30, after "part" add "Provided, That an interval of not less than fourteen

    555
    days shall elapse between the date upon which the proclamation is promulgated and the date specified as that upon which the Act is to come into force."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The adoption of this Amendment would render it necessary that we should go into details in the Bill which we desire to avoid. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) will see that the proclamation itself is to make provision for the manner in which it is to be promulgated; and I have no hesitation in saying that the Lord Lieutenant will consider it his duty to allow a proper time to elapse between the issue of a proclamation and its coming into operation in a particular district. What will happen will be this—the district will not come under the stringency of the Act until there has been a proper proclamation. The course which is pursued in such cases is, I believe, well-known in Ireland. The proclamation will take place under the ordinary form, and, of course, all of those things will be done which have been done hitherto. I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no attempt to entrap people by issuing a proclamation bringing a district under the operation of the Act, and then proceeding to put the Act in force within a few hours after the proclamation has been issued. Such a circumstance is not at all likely to occur; but matters will be allowed to follow the course which has been usual in these cases, and everyone will have an opportunity of knowing what has been done, and what they may expect, so that they may be prepared to do their duty in respect to the possession of arms.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should have been disposed to trust to the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the Committee if it were not that the experience of the last three or four days proved that Her Majesty's Government were not particularly slow in carrying out any powers which the House might confer upon them. But if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that a period of 14 days would be allowed to elapse between the date of the proclamation and the date upon which the Act was to come into force, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would be
    556
    satisfied. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot say that.] He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not give such an assurance. He was certain that his hon. Friend would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment at once if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that some reasonable interval would be allowed to elapse between the proclamation of a district and the Act coming into force.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot say that there will be an interval of 14 days; but I feel confident that the proclamation issued by the Lord Lieutenant will allow a reasonable time.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from "set" to "and" in line 4, both inclusive. The clause stated that—
    "Any such proclamation may set forth the conditions and regulations under which the carrying or having of arms or ammunition is authorized, and make provision for the appointment of persons to give effect to the same, and the manner of the promulgation thereof."
    The Amendment omitted the words requiring the proclamation to
    "set forth the conditions and regulations under which the carrying or having of arms or ammunition is authorised,"
    and limited the extent of the proclamation to the making of
    "provision for the appointment of persons to give effect to the same, and the manner of the promulgation thereof,"
    He protested in the most solemn manner against the extent of the powers which it was proposed to concede to the Lord Lieutenant under the Bill. He had been able to gather, from the remarks made by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland upon the previous clause, that the proclamation would enumerate certain persons who would be allowed to carry arms. The proclamation was always a document of moderate length, and he was entitled to presume that the conditions would be briefly set forth, and be very simple. But he contended that the proper place to consider the propriety of the conditions and regulations, and whether they were compatible with the public good, was the House of Commons, and not Dublin Castle by the Lord Lieutenant, with the advice of the Irish Privy Council. The Privy Council in

    557
    Ireland was composed partly of country gentlemen, partly of members of the Judicial and Episcopal Benches—who were not only partizans, but saturated with prejudices—and partly by military officers in command of the Forces. He was of opinion that such a body was neither a proper nor an efficient one to consider and settle the important questions included in the provisions of the present clause. If the Government would consent to lay before the House a list of the persons whom they considered entitled to licences to carry arms, and what they deemed fit and proper regulations to be imposed in connection with such licences and for the government of the excepted classes, he thought the Committee would be inclined to debate the matter in a reasonable spirit, and not at undue length; and in the long run, not only would Her Majesty's Government save time, but it would be more creditable to the reputation of the House that they should consult the feelings and opinions of the Representatives of the people. This, he thought, would be far better than the proposal now made to confide the regulation of the right to carry arms to the sole control of the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Privy Council. For these reasons he had placed the Amendment on the Paper. He thought that the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant could not, with propriety, do more than make provision for the appointment of persons to give effect to the proclamation and to put the law in force. He strongly objected to confer upon the Irish Executive the powers of a Turkish Pasha, with such regal and imperial rights and privileges as were set forth in the present clause. He hoped the Government would consider, in a proper spirit, the proposal he had made, and would tell the Committee what the class of persons was in whom they proposed to vest, unconditionally, the right of carrying arms; and what the conditions were which they were prepared to impose upon any other class.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from the word "may" to the word "and" in line 4.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed,
    "That the words 'Set forth the conditions and regulations under which the carrying or having of arms or ammunition,' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not quite understand the point of view from which the hon. Member proposes this Amendment. In point of fact, we did discuss the question raised by the Amendment on the first paragraph of the 1st clause, which says—
    "In a proclaimed district a person shall not carry or have any arms or ammunition save as authorized by the conditions set forth in the proclamation hereinafter mentioned."
    The point raised then was that the conditions ought not to be set forth in the proclamation. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not necessary to occupy the time of the Committee at any great length in discussing this proposal. I can only say that it is not an unusual form of legislation to give to the Executive which is to enforce the provisions of an Act of Parliament as "the Queen in Council" powers very much larger than any contained in the present Bill. This opinion will, I am sure, be confirmed by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) from his own personal experience in the Levant. In the Levant, in China, and in other quarters, legislation is conducted entirely by Orders in Council, and it is not at all unusual to vest the Queen in Council with very much larger powers than those which are given by this Bill. The hon. Member asks me to state who will be the persons licensed to carry arms, and what the conditions will be for regulating the possession of arms. It is because I feel that it is impossible to anticipate what the precise action of the Executive will be at any particular place and at any particular time that I am unable to do so. In some places the conditions will probably be more stringent than in others according to the exigencies of the case. But an Arms Act has existed in Ireland now, with a few intervals, for a period of 23 years, and it is perfectly well known what the conditions are under which the law has been administered. I believe that hitherto it has not been oppressively administered. It has been enforced in order to keep arms out of the hands of improper and dangerous people; but it has not had the effect of keeping arms out of the hands of those who might fairly be intrusted with them. If that has been so during the long experience we have already had of the operation of an Arms Act in Ireland I do not see why we should antici-

    559
    pate that it would be otherwise now. For these reasons I am unable to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was unable to conceive what object would be gained by making the present measure differ from previous Acts. He could very well remember when the walls were placarded with proclamations in 1867; and they contained a notification exempting soldiers, sailors, other servants of Her Majesty, magistrates, and others, from the operation of the Arms Act, and he did not see why the same thing should not be done now. These Arms Acts wore not new in Ireland; and as there was a precedent, why did not the right hon. Gentleman act upon it? He did not suppose that the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant could provide for everything. For instance, if the Volunteers were called out in Ireland, would every man composing it be deprived of his arms? Such a case was not very likely to occur; but it was possible under the Bill. He apprehended, however, that during the existence of the Act the Lord Lieutenant did not contemplate the possibility of calling out a Volunteer force. There was certainly one part of Ireland in which he (Mr. Healy) should like to see an Arms Act enforced during a certain period of the year, and that was in the month of July in some of the districts of Ulster. An Arms Act would certainly be of great service there in preventing both Protestants and Roman Catholics from carrying arms. If they had a guarantee that the Act would be used in this way, and not employed oppressively in depriving particular sections of Her Majesty's subjects of the right to have arms, the views of the Irish Members would be met. The Act would not really be put in force by the Lord Lieutenant, but by his subordinate officials in Dublin Castle. The real Lord Lieutenant would not be Earl Cowper, but Mr. Burke and the resident magistrates. Were they persons who cared anything for the rights and liberties of the Irish people? Nothing of the sort. Yet the Lord Lieutenant would be guided by these officials; and as a class, he (Mr. Healy), for one, distrusted them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo, and
    560
    consent to insert in the Bill words similar to those which had appeared in previous Acts. He would only be following the precedent set by other measures if he inserted words stating directly who were to be allowed to carry arms.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORhoped the discussion would not be allowed to drop until the question had been thoroughly ventilated. The point involved was a most important one. As he understood the Bill as it stood at present, the whole right of carrying arms in Ireland was to be dependent, under every circumstance, upon the arbitrary will of the Lord Lieutenant, advised by the Privy Council. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary told them that the point had already been settled by the 1st clause. No doubt his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) did attempt to raise the question upon the 1st clause; but he was told by the Chairman that any allusion to it would be out of Order at that stage of the Bill, because his hon. Friend was not ready with a Schedule containing a list of persons whom it was proposed to allow to have arms. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had been disposed to accept the general principle laid down in the proposal of his hon. Friend that certain exceptions should be set forth in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman might reasonably have passed over the fact that his hon. Friend had not a Schedule ready at the moment. He wished the Committee to understand clearly what the meaning of the clause was if passed in its present form. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary passed a Hares and Rabbits Bill for England. What would be thought if a Minister of the Crown were now to come down to the House and propose that the power of shooting hares and rabbits should be at the disposal of the magistracy and squirearchy of England? If such a provision had been tacked on to the Hares and Rabbits Bill by the right hon. Gentleman, all the concession made to the farming interest in that measure would have been entirely destroyed and nullified. Nevertheless, that was what the meaning of the present Bill was. The Lord Lieutenant, the mouthpiece of the landlordism and magistracy of Ireland, would be able to prevent even an honest and peaceably-disposed farmer from exercising the right given to him

    561
    by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill of last year of clearing the ground of vermin. That was how the case stood. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) to corroborate the assertion that very large powers were given to the officials in the Levant acting by order of the Queen in Council. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that there was an essential distinction between the officials of the Levant and the officials of Ireland. The officials of the Levant were trusted by the people, whereas the officials of Ireland were the sworn enemies of the Irish people; and every single power Parliament gave to the official hierarchy in Ireland was a power that would be used by an oligarchy—whether by the Lord Lieutenant alone, or by the Lord Lieutenant sitting in Privy Council with the Judges and magistrates—against the interests of the people of Ireland. The Irish people had no confidence in any one of them. The judicial ermine in Ireland covered a corrupt enemy of the people. ["Oh!" and "Order!"] That was not the case in England. ["Order!" and "Withdraw!"] He was perfectly in Order in expressing a general opinion as to the general character of a class in that country, unless it was to be understood that an Irish Member had no right now to express any opinion whatever upon Irish affairs. The whole class to whom it was proposed to give these large powers was a hierarchy more or less unrestrained by any feeling of justice, or sympathy with the people of Ireland. There was another case which he would put to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Supposing a magistrate had a private malice against any particular young farmer. This was not an improbable case, for he was in the receipt daily of letters from young Irishmen, who, having made themselves obnoxious to the powers that be—the magistrates and others, asked for his advice whether they should leave the country. If the magistrates were intrusted, without restraint, with the large powers which the Bill proposed to confer upon them, it was not improbable that they would seek to revenge upon these young men the private quarrels which had separated them into two classes in the past. He was strongly of opinion that it was not desirable to give the Lord
    562
    Lieutenant the power of selecting every class and person who should be entitled to carry arms.
    MR. LEAMYthought that before the Committee went to a division, it was only reasonable to expect that the Law Officers of the Crown should tell them why the precedent contained in former Acts was not followed on this occasion. Previous Arms' Acts had been fully enforced; and, therefore, there was no reason why, in the present Bill, they should depart from established precedent. He supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), because he was very much afraid that if it were not carried it would be impossible to move the insertion of a clause upon the subject afterwards. Seeing that this was the second Coercion Act of a Liberal Government during the present Session, he thought the least they could do was to make it run on all fours with previous enactments.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)regretted to hear the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in reference to the Judicial Bench. He did not think it was consistent with the dignity of the House, or with their love of fair play; that an hon. Member should take every opportunity he could make available for the purpose of attacking the Judicial Bench in Ireland.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: What I said I believe to be perfectly true; and I will say it as long as I can.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)was extremely sorry to hear such a remark repeated, and he would commend it to the respectful consideration of the House of Commons. In regard to the question put to the Government as to the reason why the precedent of former Acts had not been followed it was this—the Act of 1847 contained 23 clauses; the Act of 1870, which partially modified and partially continued the Act of 1847, contained 41 clauses; the Act of 1871 contained 12 clauses; and the Act of 1875, which had been referred to, was framed on the same principle. He hoped the Committee would bear in mind these results of past legislation—23 clauses, 41 clauses, and 12 clauses, while Section 2 of the Act of 1875 repealed certain parts of the Peace Preservation Act of

    563
    1870; Section 3 continued other parts of the Peace Preservation Act of 1870, subject to amendments and modifications, and altogether it was rendered extremely difficult eevn for the Judicial Bench to grasp the effect of all these continuations, repeals, modifications, and amendments, leaving out of the question the consideration that the Act of 1875 called upon an ordinary layman to apply himself to the construction and discovery of the law. The principle of the present measure was that it should be self-contained; that it should be brief and concise, and that there should be no unnecessary repetition in it. Accordingly, it provided that in a proclaimed district arms should not be borne except under conditions prescribed by the Lord Lieutenant in the proclamation; and accordingly the Committee had already provided that—
    "In a proclaimed district a person shall not carry or have any arms or ammunition save as authorized by the conditions set forth in the proclamation hereinafter mentioned."
    The Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo was intended to obliterate from the Act of Parliament this preliminary contingency, so that henceforth the Lord Lieutenant would be unable to carry out the Act as he was previously instructed to carry it out. The mode of procedure under the Bill as it now stood was simple and easily understood. The proclamation of a district would be made, and would specify the persons who would be required to obtain licences; and it would further state the conditions on which licences would be granted. He could hardly imagine that the Lord Lieutenant of that portion of Her Majesty's Dominions called Ireland was not fitted to be intrusted with the ordinary government of that country.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYdid not think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had acted wisely in challenging so boldly the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in reference to the Judicial Bench. The opinion expressed by his hon. Friend was certainly an opinion largely, if not universally, entertained by the Irish people. ["No, no!"] He did not, of course, speak of every member of the Judicial Bench in Ireland, or many members of it; but he believed that was the feeling entertained in regard to some members of that Bench. Possibly
    564
    it might have been created by a recollection of the political antecedents of some of the Irish Judges, who had attempted arbitrarily to put down the national opinion, as exemplified in the persons of particular individuals who might have been brought before them. Hon. Members very well knew that promotion to the Judicial Bench in Ireland was on a very different footing from what it was in England. In Ireland it was too often the reward of some unscrupulous partizan who, like Rabagas, first helped to stir up some political agitation, and then used his power to put down and punish the very movement by which he had risen to eminence. He believed that the remarks made by his hon. Friend below him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would, rightly or wrongly, be adopted by nine out of ten of the population on the other side of the Channel. He supported the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), although he did not think it would accomplish all that his hon. Friend expected from it. It merely proposed that the conditions and regulations under which the carrying or having of arms or ammunition was authorized should not be left to be defined by the Lord Lieutenant in the proclamation; and that, instead of intrusting the Irish Executive with this power it should be included within the provisions of the Act itself. His hon. Friend asked that Parliament should define in the Act what was and what was not to be an offence under its provisions. He did not understand that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo went further than that. The Bill proposed to create a new offence, and it was only fair that it should specify the limitations of the offence which would bring a man within the meshes of the law, and that the power of defining the offence should not be intrusted to any individual, however honourable or however exalted. He thought they were bound to make every possible provision for the protection of the rights of the people, and that they should not intrust the liberty and character of any man to the will of any officer of the Government, however high and honourable he might be. He would therefore cordially support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and he hoped that his hon. Friend would press it to a division.
    MR. CALLANhad carefully examined the Bill from beginning to end; but he had not been able to see how anything contained in it could come before the Judicial Bench in Ireland. The Judicial Bench were not involved in the operation of the Act. Unfortunately, in one of its clauses, it took away the power of appeal, and gave a summary jurisdiction to the magistrates. He could not concur in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) with respect to the Irish Judicial Bench. He believed that the Judicial Bench in Ireland bore a favourable comparison with the Judges in this country; but there was one exception, and he should certainly be very sorry to intrust his life and liberty to the learned Judge whom he had in his mind. But, apart from that right hon. Gentleman, the Irish Bench was, he believed, above suspicion. The hon. Member for Galway, referring to the persons who were to administer the Act, spoke of ermined corruption. It was the first time he (Mr. Callan) ever heard that a local magistrate in Ireland wore ermine. He hoped that in using this new term the hon. Member was as far out as he was in speaking of a corrupt hierarchy. He was afraid that such a term might be misconstrued. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What I said was a corrupt judicial hierarchy.] He thought that the less that was said about a corrupt hierarchy in connection with Dublin Castle the better. Then, again, in regard to the operation of the Hares and Rabbits Bill, there was not the slightest doubt——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling away from the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he only intended to remark that a magistrate, in regard to a gun licence, would be more likely to refuse one on account of the sporting proclivities of the applicant than on account of his moral character. In the county which he represented a man had been paid £15 out of the secret service money for an injury he had sustained at the hands of a magistrate who had refused to give him a licence, because he considered that he was addicted to poaching. If it was probable that injustice would be committed owing to the partizan action of the magistrates, it was the
    566
    duty of the House of Commons, as far as possible, to prevent that injustice; and, therefore, as this Amendment would in some degree fetter the action of the magistrates, he would support it. ["Question!"] The hon. Member who cried "Question" really did not seem to know what the Question was.
    MR. FINIGANsaid, that nothing stung so much as the truth; and he believed that that was the reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was really anxious to show his personal sympathy for the Irish Judicial Bench. He did not, how ever, believe that his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) intended to attack any individual personally. ["Question!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member are altogether outside the Question before the Committee.
    MR. FINIGANsaid, he might look upon it, then, that the Irish Bench were altogether beside the Question. He would only remark that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had told them that the Government had not followed the precedent set by previous Acts in regard to this Bill, because they wished to be brief and concise, and short and simple. The Irish Members wished also to be brief and concise, but not at the expense of principle and justice. He therefore thought that Her Majesty's Government, following up the spirit which happily prevailed last night, might come to a compromise in regard to the present Amendment. It would be wise to take that course, especially when it was considered that the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council in Ireland would have the enforcement of the Act under their sole control. The Committee had a perfect right to ask that it should be definitely and specifically stated how and when people might carry arms; how and when they would not be entitled to do so; and who were to be allowed to possess them. It was because he believed that the Bill ought to state these things definitely that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would be able to accept the Amendment.
    MR. DAWSONthought that he and every Irish Member should take advantage of every opportunity of clearing themselves from any suspicion of wishing to cast an aspersion upon the character of the Irish Judges.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that that question is outside the Amendment now before the Committee.
    MR. DAWSONasked if he was to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was to be allowed to make remarks upon a question which he (Mr. Dawson) was to be prohibited from alluding to?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland considered it necessary to make a remark upon an observation made by another hon. Member; but that observation I did not consider to be in Order.
    MR. DAWSONinquired whether he was to be allowed to make an explanation upon the same matter?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to speak to the Amendment he is at liberty to do so; but it is not convenient to continue questions to the Chair when the point of relevancy has been decided.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the Amendment related to the 2nd clause of the Bill, which declared—
    "That the Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, might from time to time, by proclamation, declare the Act to be in force."
    He had no wish to make any allusion upon any subject which the Chair was of opinion ought not to be referred to; but he trusted that he might be allowed to clear himself from any participation in the views of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. The Amendment is to omit certain words in the clause.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the proclamation by the Lord Lieutenant, with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, was referred to in the first part of the clause; and the sentence which the hon. Member for Sligo wished to have omitted from the clause related to the conditions and regulations being made by the Privy Council and the Lord Lieutenant. He submitted to the better judgment of the Chair that a certain phrase in the clause alluding to the parties who were to take action under it should not be held to be outside the orderly consideration of the Amendment. If that were so, he would not be able to refer to his Excellency Lord Cowper, or any other person concerned in the administration of the Act.
    568
    He had no wish to say a word in regard to the character of any member of the Privy Council; but he merely wished to offer an explanation in reference to the mode of procedure to be adopted by right hon. Gentlemen composing the Privy Council in making the rules and conditions under which the carrying of arms was to be authorized, and that he took to be a totally different matter. The Privy Council and the Judicial Bench, which formed part of it in Ireland, were not in the same position as right hon. Gentlemen occupying a similar position in England. In Ireland they attained that position on account of political action; and a declaration from such a body would not inspire a sufficient amount of confidence to induce the Irish Members to intrust them with the power of making these laws and regulations. In England, no doubt, the Judges attained their high position from higher motives; but in Ireland every member of the Judicial Bench sitting upon the Privy Council, who would be intrusted with the making of these conditions, was a man who could be pointed out as a decidedly political partizan. It was only right, therefore, that the House should regard with some suspicion the rules and regulations that were likely to be promulgated by a body who had themselves attained their present position by being, in the first instance, extreme agitators; but who threw their extreme views on one side when it suited their purposes, and they were appointed to a higher position. ["Question!"] He supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and he thought that, as far as possible, the conditions should not be left to any body of individuals; but should be defined by Parliament itself. Touching the word hierarchy, which was used by the hon. Member for Galway——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep strictly to the terms of the Amendment, which is now clearly before the Committee.
    MR. DAWSONwould only add that for the reasons he had stated, and because he had no confidence in the body who were to make the rules, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
    MR. GILLalso supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He thought if the conditions

    569
    were not stated in the Bill they might be made to press with unnecessary harshness upon a certain class in Ireland—namely, the farmers. He thought it should be specified that all farmers who held a gun licence should be allowed to bear arms; at least, on their own farms, so long as they held such licence. If anything was discovered against them which should prevent them from carrying arms, it would be easy to cancel the licence, and after that the weapons might be taken away. The reason he said this was that he felt it might inflict great hardship upon that class of persons, because it was well known that the magistrates of Ireland would be the principal advisers of the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council in putting the Act in force, and that they almost entirely belonged to the landlord class. It would be a very easy mode of defeating the Ground Game Bill, passed last Session, for these landlords to deprive the farmers of their licence to carry a gun. Under the provisions of the Bill the magistrates of Ireland would have a very simple means of defeating the objects of that Act. In point of fact, it would have the same effect as compulsorily signing a tenant out of the Act of 1870. There could be no doubt that if a farmer was prevented, for the long term during which this Act was to run, but which, he hoped, would be mitigated later on, from carrying a gun, the result would be that his farm would be overrun with hares and rabbits, and land for which he was paying a rent of 30 s. an acre would not be worth 5s. an acre. As the Bill was now drawn it was to continue in force for a period of five years; and unless an Amendment was carried to diminish that period, a farmer might be prevented from using a gun for five years. In fact, he had seen farms in Ireland, some years ago, in regard to which there were covenants in the lease prohibiting the tenants from killing rabbits, which had been reduced to such a condition, in consequence of the ravages of ground game, that they were scarcely worth cultivating. The same result might be brought about by a stringent and unjust use of this Act, and by defeating the object of other Acts which had been passed for the protection of the farmer. This was one of the reasons why he thought the persons should be
    570
    specified in the Act who were to be allowed to carry arms; and among them should be all farmers who had a gun licence, and who were only using their guns upon their own farms.
    MR. BIGGARwas of opinion that the Committee should settle, as far as possible, the details of every law that was passed. It was proposed by the present Bill to give authority to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council in Ireland to make certain regulations with regard to the carrying of arms and ammunition. That might be all very well if they had an Executive in Ireland that was free from partizanship, and who knew anything of the people they were appointed to govern; but, in the present constitution of the Privy Council, it was notorious that a great many of the members of that body were strong political partizans, while, on the other hand, the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary knew very little about Irish matters. The result would be that in framing the rules and regulations the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be entirely in the hands of the Privy Council. The consequence might be that the Irish magistracy, who belonged to the landlord class, acting in conjunction with the clergy of the Established Church, might enter into a combination to arm only those members of the artizan classes in the towns who were their co-religionists, and to take all arms out of the hands of the farmers and other classes who were opposed to them in political and religious views. Surely the farmers had a reasonable excuse for possessing arms, seeing that they required them for the protection of their interests against the depredations of ground game. If, however, they were disarmed, and the artizans and labourers in the towns were allowed to carry arms, although they could not possibly require them for the protection of their property, the law would operate with unfairness and injustice. For these reasons it was extremely desirable that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo should be adopted, and that the power of making the regulations should be taken out of the hands of an irresponsible body and confided to Parliament itself. He had seen an account in an Irish county paper that very day, which stated that in every town in the county certain classes were

    571
    being provided with arms by means of subscriptions supplied through landlord agencies, established for the purpose of crushing the tenant farmers. It would have a most mischievous effect if these irresponsible persons were allowed to have possession of arms, while the parties who ought to have them were deprived of them.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 295; Noes 31: Majority 264.—(Div. List, No. 117.)
    MR. LALORsaid, the object of the Amendment he was about to propose was to preserve to the farmer the right of holding arms for the purpose of protecting his crops from wild fowl. If the farmers had to depend upon their landlords for their licences they stood a very poor chance, for it was well known that the Irish landlords were quite opposed to the farmers having arms, as they complained of the farmers destroying the game. For the last 10 years he knew that no farmers in his county could get arms, owing to the action of the magistracy on the Bench.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 4, after the word "ammunition" to insert "for purposes other than agricultural."—(Mr. Lalor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am afraid that the insertion of the words of this Amendment would be a rather dangerous exception to the clause. There are some circumstances connected with agriculture in which the Bill is intended to prevent the carrying of arms. The use of firearms in the Ground Game Bill was not given, because it was the most effectual method of destroying ground game, which can be done much better by snaring. The Irish farmer will, therefore, not be prevented getting in his crop through the want of firearms. But the point has already been decided by the Committee upon the Amendment moved by the hon. Member himself to insert the words "outside of his own land." That Amendment was discussed at considerable length, and trust hon. Members opposite will now allow us to get on with the remaining clauses of the Bill.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNORthought the right hon. Gentleman had rather jocosely treated a great difficulty which would arise under the Bill; and he again appealed to him not to leave the farmers of Ireland entirely in the hands of their masters, the landlords.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, there was more ground for the Amendment than the right hon. Gentleman supposed. It was well known that large portions of the land in Ireland were in process of reclamation. The geological character of Donegal, for instance, was such as to render blasting necessary from year to year, and the blasting-powder and dynamite which was used would be strictly for agricultural purposes. Under the Act, however, these necessary substances would be considered as ammunition. The Committee would see that it was wrong to restrict them by the same rules as ordinary gunpowder, seeing that they were indispensably necessary for the reclamation of large portions of land in many parts of Ireland. Therefore, he urged upon Her Majesty's Government that the use of these substances should be permitted, and that they should not be subject to the vexatious regulations sought to be imposed.
    MR. GIBSONhoped the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) would not divide the Committee upon that Amendment. The clause which the hon. Member sought to amend enabled the Lord Lieutenant by proclamation to make general arrangements with reference to both agricultural and nonagricultural holdings. The Amendment of the hon. Member would have the effect of fettering the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his discretion, and would leave him no power to deal with purposes that were agricultural.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DAWSON MR. DAWSON moved an Amendment providing that the proclamation specified in the clause should be published both in the English and Irish languages. The reason for that was obvious, because in the Western parts of Ireland—the parts most affected by this Bill—the proportion of the Irish-speaking population was very great indeed, amounting, as it did, to several hundreds of thousands of persons. He could not better point his remarks than by a reference to the fact that when the Duchess of Abercorn left

    573
    Dublin Castle, she addressed her farewell to the people of Ireland in both the English and Irish languages, so that it might be understood in the Irish-speaking districts as well as in other parts of Ireland. If, therefore, the Duchess of Abercorn, upon so simple an occasion as her departure from Ireland, thought it necessary to do this, it was of much more importance that it should be done in the case of a proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant as a means of making it effectually understood by the people. He did not think Her Majesty's Government would have any hesitation, for the reason he had given, in assenting to the Amendment standing in his name, and which he would now move.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, after the word "thereof" to insert "and in Irish-speaking districts such proclamation shall be made in the Irish language."—(Mr. Dawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if the Lord Lieutenant thought it necessary, he would, of course, direct the proclamation to be issued in the Irish language. They must bear in mind that the Lord Lieutenant had to prevent the carrying and having of arms in certain districts, and he would therefore take the best means to that end. He (Sir William Harcourt) was not, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, familiar with the Irish language, nor did he know the names of the newspapers published in that language by the Land League; and, under existing circumstances, he thought it better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I hope the hon. Member for Carlow will not divide the Committee upon this Amendment.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment, notwithstanding that he had proposed it most seriously. He thought that care should be taken that the Irish people should not be punished for contravening an Act of Parliament which had not been brought to their knowledge.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment standing next upon the
    574
    Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County (Major Nolan), I have to say that, by Clause 1, the Committee have already agreed that no person shall carry arms or ammunition, unless authorized to do so by the conditions set forth in the proclamation mentioned in Clause 2. The terms of that clause already agreed to are to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant in such proclamation may set forth the conditions and regulations for the carrying of arms or ammunition, and for appointing persons to give effect to the permission, and also for promulgating the manner of giving it. All this the clause, in the terms agreed to, leaves to the judgment and discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County not only limits the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, as to the manner of appointing such persons, but compels them to issue licences for the carrying of arms by agricultural tenants upon specified land, this having been already negatived in a former Amendment; and it also interposes between the Lord Lieutenant and the execution of the Act the certificate of two Justices of the Peace, who may authorize any person to carry arms generally. The Amendment is, therefore, inconsistent with the clause as already agreed to, and cannot be put. The same remarks apply to a subsequent Amendment—that of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan).
    MAJOR NOLANhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would consider the matter on Report.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the idea of the Amendment he was about to move was taken largely from the South African Act, which contained a very similar proviso. His object was that the Lord Lieutenant should state the place where arms could be deposited, and name a time for their being so deposited. He suggested also that the time for such deposit should be a reasonable one. There was another point to which he desired to call the attention of the Committee. Many persons would have to travel four or five miles to the police barracks, and it would be a great hardship to compel them to bring in their guns within any short periods. Therefore, he thought that it would only be fair to say that they should bring in

    575
    their arms on the next market day after the proclamation was published. The Government having determined to call in arms, it should be sufficient for a person to write a letter to the police barracks saying that he was possessed of a gun, and then the police might come and fetch it. He could not see why the Government should call upon the people to act as Her Majesty's carriers in bringing in their arms, and considered that a simple notification to the police was all that should be demanded.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, at the end of the Clause to add "and every such proclamation shall name a certain day and place on or before and at which every person residing, or being within the district specified, not being one of the persons permitted to have and carry arms or ammunition under this Act, shall deposit and leave the arms and ammunition, and a receipt for the same shall be given to the person depositing them."—(Mr Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I believe that the Proviso I have already undertaken to bring up on Report will accomplish all that the hon. Member seeks in his Amendment. The Proviso will deal with the custody and registration of the arms in proper places.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the right hon. Gentleman would be better able to carry out the intention of the Amendment before the Committee than if they actually agreed to the Amendment, which he hoped the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would consent to withdraw. He considered the Amendment, however, to be very reasonable in its requirement.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to the question of arms in the possession of shopkeepers. If the stock of traders was to be seized, he presumed that the Proviso alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman would insure compensation to the owners on the same principle as compensation was given in the case of an alteration in the Excise duties. There were in Ireland many traders who had large quantities of arms in their possession.
    MR. HEALYinquired what proportion of the cost of game licences would be returned to persons having to surren-
    576
    der their arms. It was only right that persons who had paid the sum demanded for a licence should, when they gave up their guns, be allowed compensation. He was willing, however, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It happens to be a part of the year when shooting licences will not be taken out.
    MR. LALORsaid, the licence referred to by his hon. Friend was the 10 s. gun licence, and not the £3 licence for shooting game.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will consider the matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 270; Noes 26: Majority 244.—(Div. List, No. 118.)
    Clause 3 (Power as to prohibiting or regulating sale or importation of arms and ammunition).
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose before the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) rose to move that standing in his name. He proposed to leave out in page 2, line 7, the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland." The Committee had so constantly heard from the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the Lord Lieutenant's discretion should not be fettered; that no limits were to be placed to it; and that if he were trusted at all, he must be trusted entirely; that he (Mr. Callan) could not see why he was to be fettered with the obligation of taking the advice of the Privy Council. When he proposed to add the words to a former Bill, he was met with the argument that the Privy Council in Ireland were a very large body, and that it would require a long notice to be given in order to summon them together.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 8, to leave out the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not think the object of the hon. Member

    577
    would be at all interfered with by leaving these words in the clause. I have never understood that the Lord Lieutenant is fettered by the Privy Council; and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland informs me that is not the case. Having set forth that the proclamation is to be made with the advice of the Privy Council, it is almost necessary that their advice should be given in the present matter. I may mention that the proper phrase is "The Lord Lieutenant in Council."
    DR. COMMINSsaid, the Government seemed to think that what was wanting in Ireland was arbitrary power placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. But if they were to submit to arbitrary power at all, it was almost the A B C of political science that the less power placed in his hands the better. If the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant was to be shared with a shifting, variable, and almost unknown body like the Privy Council, so much the more likely would his arbitrary powers be abused. It might, therefore, conduce very considerably to the proper exercise of that arbitrary power to have it vested in the Lord Lieutenant alone, so that he should not at any time be able to shelter himself by saying he had acted by the advice of the Privy Council. The advice of the Privy Council was not listened to; and, to all intents and purposes, they did not exercise the slightest influence. Why, then, should they be retained in the Bill? No good object was gained by it; and the only object gained was the leading away of public opinion and the House from fixing its attention on the authorities who were primarily, and virtually, and necessarily responsible for all the acts promulgated in the name of the Privy Council. That was misleading; and he urged the Committee to take away that nominal guarantee, which was really worth nothing, and to withdraw words which added nothing to the force or stringency of the Act.
    MR. SEXTONapproved of the Amendment, and believed that the Lord Lieutenant, whether he were an Englishman or an Irishman, would be far better without the advice of the Privy Council, the members of which in many cases distinguished themselves by vindictiveness. The Lord Lieutenant would be better off if he exercised all his powers
    578
    without their advice, for although they might know more about Ireland than he, he was not animated by the same spirit of vindictiveness. He preferred uncorrupted ignorance to sinister knowledge.
    MR. DAWSONwould rather leave the responsibility of this Act on English statesmen and English Governors. So long as Ireland was governed by this country he would let Englishmen bear the responsibility.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had been unable to gather what was the precise function which the Privy Council performed. At one time it was said to be an ornamental body, at another that it was useful, and at other times that it combined both qualities. When the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were members of that body it would be both useful and ornamental; but he wished to know whether that body was ever really consulted? The Secretary of State for the Home Department said the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant was not much fettered by the action of the Privy Council; in other words, the Lord Lieutenant called a number of gentlemen together, and said—"Really, you must put your signatures to this proclamation. It is merely a matter of form, and you have only to sign your names here." If that was all that the Council did, why were their names appended always to the Vice-regal proclamations? If they simply gave their names as a sham and an unreality, their names ought not to be attached to the proclamations; if they were a reality, what could be more monstrous than that the persons who performed judicial functions should be the same persons who constituted the Executive? What would be the effect if the Lord Chief Justice of England was called to Windsor one day to make legislation and the next day to judge of a case at Westminster which was constituted a crime under the proclamation he had taken part in issuing? That could only be permitted in Ireland; if it were done with regard to Basutoland the Radicalism on the opposite Benches would rise in rebellion, and condemn it. The functions of that distinguished body—the Privy Council—were fulfilled by three classes of persons, who were, to his mind, unfit and unsuitable for Executive functions. They were either

    579
    high ecclesiastics of one particular religious persuasion—and it was grossly unfair that the religious persuasion of the minority of the people alone should contribute to the officers of the Executive—or renegade patriots who had reached the Bench in Ireland; or some swaggering officers who had distinguished themselves by cruelties towards the race which had the misfortune to be subject to British rule. Many nations had that misfortune; and he held that ecclesiastics of one sect—and that the minority—Judges who were renegade patriots, and officers of rather unfortunate antecedents, were the very last persons who should be intrusted with the duties of the Executive of a country. He therefore took this opportunity, as he should take every opportunity, until the public opinion of this country was aroused, of condemning the scandal and the infamy of the judicial and Executive system in Ireland.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNApointed out that the previous clause provided that the Lord Lieutenant might, by warrant, direct any person named in such warrant to search the houses, &c., and said he did not see, therefore, that it was of any importance to retain the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council." This was not a material matter; but he did not approve of the principle of fettering the Lord Lieutenant by the Privy Council.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Privy Council, and he asked him to inform the Committee what the Council did when it met. He could not understand the insertion of the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," unless it meant that the Lord Lieutenant must act under the direction of the Privy Council. If he so acted he would be fettered, and the Committee had a right to have that clearly explained. The Government demanded unlimited powers for the Lord Lieutenant. He thought personal power had been given to the Lord Lieutenant by the Coercion Act; but the Government were not satisfied with that; they must bring in this Bill to increase that power. He was in favour of letting the Lord Lieutenant have the personal power demanded.
    Question put.
    THE CHAIRMANstated that he thought the Ayes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and Ten Members only having stood up, he declared that the Ayes had it.
    MR. WARTONbegged leave to move an Amendment of one word. The clause under notice empowered the Lord Lieutenant to make orders for prohibiting in Ireland the sale or importation of arms or ammunition, and the word he proposed to insert was "manufacture." It seemed to him that it might be necessary to check the manufacture of arms in Ireland; and as it was likely that claims would be made for weapons of which people might be deprived, it seemed desirable to stop the creation of weapons for which such claims might be made.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, after the word "sale," insert the word "manufacture."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I think the Amendment is hardly necessary, the object being sufficiently provided for by the restrictions on the sale of arms.
    MR. WARTONexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSONwished to suggest that introduction of the proposed Amendment would improve the clause, because the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would go to show that the words "or importation" might not be necessary, if everything was covered by the word "sale." But he would not press the matter.
    MR. CALLANthought that to prohibit the manufacture of arms in Ireland would be something akin to prohibiting the woollen manufacture. He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) thought the demand for arms in Ireland would cause a new industry to spring up which might interfere with some English industry.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONproposed, as an Amendment, to leave out of the clause the words "sale or." in order to limit the

    581
    power of the Lord Lieutenant to importation. He did not propose to offer any resistance to the power of the Lord Lieutenant over the importation of arms; first, because importation might be illicit, and, secondly, because, even if the importation itself might not be illicit, arms might be imported for illicit or illegal distribution. He was not concerned to defend any such system; but considering the stringent and extreme powers given to the Lord Lieutenant by the previous Act over the personal liberty of Irishmen, and by this Bill over the possession of arms, he thought it was injudicious and unnecessary to hamper the industry of a particular class of traders by the proposed regulations. The sale of arms in Ireland was an open and legitimate branch of trade, and he wished to point out to the Committee and to the Government that the present time was one of depression, and that it would be extremely hard that people who had to pay taxes should be embarrassed in their trade for no sufficient reason. People who had no right to have arms would not be likely to go and buy arms, and he urged that shopkeepers selling arms should not be impeded in their trade by vexatious restrictions. The public peace would be sufficiently maintained by the power to prevent the importation of arms, and he protested against the proposal to hamper the trade of shopkeepers.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, to leave out the words "sale or."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'sale or' stand part of the Clause."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I am sorry it is impossible to accept this Amendment. In former Acts—in Acts from 1870 to 1880—it was deemed necessary to insert these words, and especially in 1875, when the whole thing was re-considered, and it was decided to impose this amongst other restrictions. The object is not to hamper trade, for the trader will find it as easy now as it has been for the last 10 years to have a licence; but it is to prevent dishonest traders doing what will, in fact, injure honest traders. Therefore, I trust the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORdid not think he need encourage his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) to proceed with the Amendment; but this clause was one of the most odious clauses in the Bill. It put every man trading in guns under the patronage and control of the Government. The Solicitor General for Ireland said it would only interfere with dishonest traders; but what was the definition of dishonest trade in guns? An hon. Member said, "Trade in guns that were burst!" That was a very reasonable answer; but was that the right hon. Gentleman's definition? Was not his reason one of those oratorical arguments that Nisi Prius lawyers flashed out to confuse people? How could there be a dishonest trade in guns? A gunsmith mast keep open shop so that people might go freely in and out, and the police could look in and see what was going on at any time of the day. The fact was that the present Ministry wanted to get everything in Ireland under more espionage and control than it even was. There was not a single circumstance of social and political life that did not lie at the discretion of the Government in Ireland; and, going on in the excellent process of imitating the worst features of French life under a despotism, they proposed to have gun-shops under Ministerial control; and, by-and-bye, they might put tobacco-shops under the same control, so that any individual who wished to sell tobacco would have to go to Dublin Castle and recommend himself to Vice-regal patronage by such a declaration of political principles as would commend itself to the occupants of the Treasury Bench. If the Government wished to preserve the peace in Ireland, and prevent people who had no right to have arms from getting arms, they would be able to do that by the power of regulating the importation of arms. Arms shops were always under the control of the police, who could inspect them at any time; but the Government wished to get everything in Ireland under their control, so that it might flourish or decay as they might think fit.
    DR. COMMINSpointed out that the Act already in force gave the power of domiciliary search among the agricultural population; but the Bill under consideration applied that power to the entire trading population. If the Bill passed, every trader in arms or ammu-

    583
    nition would be subject to disturbance, as he was not under the previous Act; and that would be an interference with trade such as would constitute a serious grievance among the shopkeepers. Shopkeepers did not put everything in their windows; and no shopkeeper who was in any way obnoxious to the police, whether he kept a beer shop or a bread-shop, but would be liable to the allegation that he was dealing in something connected with arms. There was no necessity whatever for this restriction; and, in fact, it would do more harm than good. It would, indeed, do mischief, for it would lead to illicit trading in gunpowder, and perhaps also in guns. At present, traders in arms and ammunition were not subject to vexatious or troublesome regulations or to search, and their trade was carried on openly. Any person selling the slightest quantity of gunpowder, or any weapon, was obliged to make an entry with regard to the purchaser, in order to be able to give information afterwards if the purchaser had some improper purpose. That was quite enough, without further restrictions; but if the clause were adopted it would create illegal dealing in arms and gunpowder. If the Government did not wish to cause that, and to drive people from fair and legitimate trading, they would do well to adopt the Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I must call the attention of the hon. Member who has just spoken (Dr. Commins) to the law of England in regard to this matter. There is a limit as to the quantity of explosives that a man can keep. This is provided for by the Act of 1875. I wish the hon. Member to see what a down-trodden and oppressed people we must be in this country. Any man who has explosive substances on his premises is subject to this—that anybody, an inspector or anyone else with an inspector, may go into his premises and search them without a warrant. The terms of the Act are as follows:—
    "Any person who is an officer may enter at any time; and, if he cannot otherwise, by force, as well on Sundays as other days, and may search for explosives, take samples of any explosives found therein, or any substances which he reasonably supposes to be explosive. Any person who fails to admit into the place any officer in pursuance of this section, or obstructs him in the exercise of his duty is liable to a penalty of £50;"
    and so forth.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): That is also the case in Ireland.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My hon. and learned Friend says there are similar provisions in force in Ireland as regards explosives. Is there anything in the present Bill more oppressive or coercive than this? In this country the Bill was passed for the public safety. The object is to see that there are no explosives wrongly stored in any premises. The Bill now before us refers, of course, also to arms. It has been said that the present clause would injure trade; but does anybody believe that the object of the Lord Lieutenant can be to damage the trade of the country? Whatever prejudices may exist, it is impossible that he could have such an object as that. Surely hon. Gentlemen will admit that the Lord Lieutenant must wish to allow of such freedom of trade as is consistent with what he considers the necessities of the public safety. Therefore, the notion of injuring small traders is only an idea without any foundation. I must repeat to the Committee that what we are doing in this clause is only similar to what has been done under former Acts. Does anyone suppose that the gunmakers of Ireland have suffered from the working of those Acts? For my part, I am rather in favour of restrictive legislation as regards arms, and in this country, one of these days, I hope to see some measure provided for the registration of arms. It cannot be considered as tyranny at all. With respect to the storage of gunpowder and ammunition, surely it is the proper thing that there should be strict regulations. The present clause will not oppress in any way legitimate trade. I do not think that anyone can object to the clause in its present form.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had given the most admirable reasons why the Amendment of his hon. Friend should be adopted. He had explained the Explosives Act, and had said that that Act applied to Ireland, and that stringent measures were provided under it both for this country and for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had said that no gunsmith had been injured by the powers given to the police under former Acts; but he was well aware that in the smaller towns a great deal of

    585
    injury had been done to the small traders in arms. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would be glad to have restrictive measures applied in England as well as in Ireland. As regarded the registration of arms, he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) agreed with him entirely. He was not particularly in favour of the unrestricted sale of arms in any civilized community; but he wished to point out that in this country they had simply a measure which had been passed for the public safety, and in order to provide against accidents and the blundering use of firearms. It was an Act passed by the majority of the English people for their protection and security; but, in the present case, they were passing an Act which was a distinct stigma upon the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman had said that all the Irish Members were conspirators. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I specially exempted the hon. Member.] He was obliged for the compliment; but he did not want to be exempted. He begged to decline any exemption. He took it that if one was a conspirator, all were. The right hon. Gentleman said for that very reason the Government were justified in bringing in the Bill with its present provisions. If it were necessary to have stringent measures in order to suppress apolitical conspiracy it would be a different thing; but he did not think that the present Bill would have that effect. He would beg to remind the Committee that they had in Ireland two distinctly opposite and antagonistic classes engaged in a struggle which nearly approached civil war—a civil war, that is, of interests and passions, although not of arms. The Government had put all the power into the hands of one side, and had put all the oppression upon the other. That was a strong reason why they should object to unnecessary powers being conferred upon a class, and unnecessary hardship being inflicted on the Irish people. The Solicitor General for Ireland spoke of an honest trade in arms. There was nothing more likely to injure that honest trade than the present clause, because the effect would be that a secret and clandestine trade would be carried on in arms. If they prevented the open sale of, and the honest dealing in arms and ammunition, the effect would be that in the shops in the small towns, such as those of grocers and ironmongers, a secret
    586
    sale of arms would be carried on, and one of the conditions of sale would be that the arms were to be carried away secretly. The Government had already got all the power that they needed under that Bill. They had almost all the power that there would be in a state of siege. They had prevented the importation of arms, and that, from the Home Secretary's point of view, was, no doubt, a reasonable thing to do. Assuming it to be possible for an invasion to take place, that was a perfectly natural precaution. He did not know that it had been of much avail during the late Fenian conspiracy. Few seizures of arms had been made during that time. The only seizure that he had heard of was the capture of a sword belonging to a late hon. Member of that House. The hon. Member was going over to Ireland, and in his luggage he had his Court suit, which included, of course, a sword. His boxes were searched, and that dangerous weapon was impounded as a security against Fenian invasion. He did not complain much of the stopping of the importation; but what did the Government want more than that? They had not only prevented the carrying of arms and given power to arrest anyone who had arms in his possession—measures which seemed to be amply sufficient for the purpose which the Government must have in view—but now they wanted to add another restriction to the Bill. He thought it was totally unnecessary to do so, and for that reason he strongly hoped that his hon. Friend would proceed with his Amendment.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he should like to ask whether there was a difference between the proposed law and the one to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred? Was there a power given under the former law to imprison, or was the offence under that Act only perishable by fines? By that Act they had a power to imprison which, he believed, did not exist under the other. Therefore, he considered that the analogy which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn was not a true one. The cases seemed to be completely different.
    MR. BIGGARcould not see why the Government objected to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton). The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that there was an old Act which referred to explosives. The words of that

    587
    Act were well arranged with regard to arms, and there was a regulation that any person dealing in firearms must give the name of the purchaser. What regulation did they want more than that? What reason was there that they should give authority to the Government to make fresh regulations? No change was necessary, because the present system was sufficient. If the Government would point out in what respect the present regulations were defective, and then state what correction they thought to be necessary, the case would be different. But they had not told them the defect in the present system. The result of fresh regulations would be that persons would lay themselves open unwittingly to be brought within the meshes of the law. They would have a difficulty in finding out what the new regulations were, and perhaps after having carefully read the proclamations which had been issued they would render themselves liable to punishment without knowing that they had committed a breach of the law. He held that they ought not to alter the present law unless there was something materially wrong shown to exist in the present system. It had been stated that a good deal of time had been wasted in that House upon debating small questions; but he did not consider that the time occupied in such discussions as those was altogether wasted.
    MR. LALORwished to remind the right hon. Gentleman of this fact. What was the good of giving permission to certain people to have arms if they did not give them any places where they could purchase them? How could those arms be procured? They would have to proceed to the nearest depôt; but that might be in a proclaimed district, so that they would not be able to obtain them at all, perhaps. Another point was this. If they prevented the sale of arms altogether, what could the present dealers in arms do with those which they already had in their possession? If they prevented them selling them they ought to pay for them. Would the Government say that they would take those arms at their present value? The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the great gunmakers; but they were not the people who would be affected. It was the small traders who never made arms, who lived entirely by the sale of them; these were
    588
    the people who would suffer under the present clause.
    Question put.
    THE CHAIRMANstated that he thought the Ayes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and Ten Members only having stood up, he declared that the Ayes had it.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. LEAMYsaid, that before the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was proposed, he had one to propose himself, which he hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would accept. It was, in page 2, line 9, after the word "arms," to leave out the words "and ammunition." His reason in moving that was as follows:—The Secretary of State for the Home Department had referred to the Explosives Act. He (Mr. Leanly) had looked at that Act, and he found that nearly everything that was contained in that Peace Preservation Bill was contained in that Act under the definition of the word "ammunition." Every description of explosive, as far as he could see, was included. They had been told by the Home Secretary that that was an Explosives Act, and that powers were given under it to regulate the quantity of ammunition and material kept by persons, and to search for such material. Under these circumstances, he submitted that the additional power asked for in the present Bill was totally unnecessary. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words "and ammunition."—(Mr. Leamy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'and ammunition' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member will see that the Act does not refer to the importation of arms. I, therefore, cannot accept his Amendment.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he merely rose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether, if it were necessary for 20 Members to stand up in

    589
    their places in support of an Amendment on one side, it was not also necessary that there should be 20 Members on the other side. At present there was not a quorum in the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the point before the Committee.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORobserved, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not acquainted with the Explosives Act to which he had alluded. That Act did refer to the keeping, selling, and importing of arms. As his hon. Friend had pointed out, the substances referred to included almost every kind of explosive. They were all covered by that Bill, and prohibited from importation. That being so, it was evidently entirely unnecessary that they should enact the clause of that Bill in its present form. The right hon. Gentleman wished to attach a penalty to the keeping of ammunition which was at present in Ireland, and he had stated that a prohibition and penalty had existed under former Acts. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had not the time to look through the Act beyond the point which referred to the importation; but, if he was not mistaken, the only penalty that could be inflicted under the Explosives Act was a fine. He did not think that there was anything in the Act which alluded to a penalty of imprisonment. There was a fine in the first instance, at least. It was not impossible that they would imprison for a second or third offence. He believed that, in all probability, imprisonment was only allowed where a fine remained unpaid. Ammunition being sufficiently covered by that Statute, he thought that the words should be left out of the present Bill.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped the Government would not insert any punishment for the keeping of ammunition, unless they promised to re-consider the definition of the word as it stood in that Bill. He thought that the definition in the present Bill was the wrong one. It might be taken to include crackers, which ladies pulled at parties. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but that was not so absurd as might be sup-
    590
    posed. He thought the Government should keep to a fixed definition of "ammunition," and the definition in the present Act seemed to be considerably wider than ought to be the case. He did not mind telling a story a second time in the House, and it was a fact—as had been stated by an hon. Member opposite—that a monkey and his master had been apprehended in the streets of Dublin; and, in another case, that a gentleman wearing a sword had been arrested on the stage whilst declaring that "his name was Norval." Such things might occur again unless the Law Officers saw that proper definitions were inserted in the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will the hon. Member be satisfied with the assurance that crackers will not be considered ammunition in the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant?
    MAJOR NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the possession of one percussion cap shall not bring a man under the provisions of the Bill?
    MR. SEXTONwas afraid that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman did not touch the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy), which would leave the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers control over the sale and importation of arms, but take away from him the control of the sale and importation of ammunition. The hon. Member, in support of his Amendment, produced the Act which, both in England and Ireland, regulated the sale of ammunition. The trade was already sufficiently controlled, and as there were so many useful and harmless things which might come under the definition of "ammunition," he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment. The Committee should know exactly what was meant by "ammunition" if the Government were determined to retain the word. There were a great many things mentioned in the 6th clause; but still there ought to be a clearer definition.
    MR. GILLsaid, such things as crackers and squibs, which the hon. Member for Galway County had mentioned, were hardly worth including in the Bill. The Home Secretary had replied to the hon. and gallant Member in a serio-comic vein, as though it was ridiculous to suppose that small fireworks would be touched by the measure; but he could

    591
    mention a case in his own experience I where they had been touched under a measure similar to the present. During the trouble of 1848, after a similar Bill to this had been passed, the police made a raid upon the little shop of a poor old woman who sold squibs and crackers, and "cocked hats"—as they were called—and other children's fireworks, and cleared out all her stock, so that she had to close up her small business. That was a practical illustration of what might happen—it was a thing which actually had happened; therefore, he thought it essential that what was meant by ammunition should be distinctly mentioned in the Act.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that when the Secretary of State for the Home Department gave the reply—which he supposed was well intended—as to the care the Lord Lieutenant would take in his proclamation to exclude crackers, he (Mr. Callan) had been at a loss to see how the Lord Lieutenant, according to the terms of the Bill, could exclude them. Where was there in the Bill—which was perfectly clear—any power to exclude crackers? The 6th clause defined the word "ammunition;" but in no clause was the Lord Lieutenant empowered to define it. The first part of the measure said—
    "Any person carrying or having any arms or ammunition in contravention of this Act, may be arrested, without warrant, by any constable or peace officer, in order to his being dealt with according to law."
    And in Clause 3 it said—
    "The Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, may, from time to time, make orders for prohibiting or regulating in Ireland the sale or importation of arms and ammunition."
    But the Bill did not give power to the Lord Lieutenant to state what was or what was not ammunition; therefore, in giving the assurance he had referred to the Home Secretary had completely misled the Committee as to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant. There must have been some blunder committed by the draftsman, who, probably, was a person who had never fired a shot in his life, or had never conducted a prosecution against a man charged with using firearms. There had been a large number of murders in England and Ireland, accounts of which he had read in the newspapers, which had been committed
    592
    with firearms and powder, but not with bullets, with what were called slugs and swan shot. So far as he was concerned, if he were to be fired at, he should infinitely prefer to be made a target for a single bullet than for half-a-dozen slugs. There was some chance of being missed by a single bullet fired by a would-be assassin, who, perhaps, naturally, or, perhaps, through fear and trepidation, might be a bad shot; but there would be very little chance of escaping a nasty, if not a deadly, wound where slugs were used, no matter how faulty the marksman might he. And yet slugs were omitted from the Act! They had a right to complain of this omission. The word "ammunition" was faulty here, and he would suggest that they should expunge it altogether from the Bill, and, by so doing, teach a lesson to the ignorant draftsman, who ought to have taken up a dictionary to find out what came under the definition, or, at any rate, might have taken up some War Office tender, where the different kinds of ammunition were mentioned. In common respect to the House the draftsman should have done this, for they were entitled to know exactly what was meant by the word. The fact that there were such a small number of Members present to take part in this discussion was, no doubt, to be accounted for by its being the dinner hour, and by Members being too busily engaged elsewhere, to come into the House until they heard the division bell rung. Under the circumstances, the discussion should be continued by such Members as were present until the number present had increased, and until there had been some expression of opinion from the Treasury Bench as to the definition of the word ammunition.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there was nothing about buckshot in the Bill, and no reference was made to slugs. It really seemed to him that the object of the draftsman had been to make the whole affair appear as ridiculous as possible. They all knew that it was an absurdity to pass an Arms Bill at all, although that was no reason why they should permit the absurdity to appear on the face of the document. It certainly looked as though the Committee were determined to make it appear so; but for this he would be in no way responsible, and would vote for the Amendment. So far as he knew

    593
    nitro-glycerine and dynamite were not intended for firearms at all, but were used for blasting and other industrial purposes.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the Explosives Act had been referred to; and it might be well to remark that though the provisions of that measure were very stringent, as pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, infringement of its provisions did not, as in the case of the present Bill, entail imprisonment, and there were exceptions made in the clauses in favour of gun-makers, cartridge-makers, and so forth. Surely in the Arms Bill there should be similar provisions, and also exceptions, in favour of manufacturers of, and dealers in, fireworks. There was no provision for protecting those classes who might be pursuing a legitimate trade. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a comparison in this matter between the law applying to the people of England and this measure affecting Ireland, and had said—"You have in Ireland the same law that we have in England;" but it must be remembered, however plausible this sounded, that there was no imprisonment under the English law. He trusted that, as Her Majesty's Government had really brought this matter into court themselves, they would at least be consistent enough to make the same law apply to the two countries, and inflict in Ireland no more than the penalties inflicted in England.
    MR. LALORsaid, he wished to say a few words on this subject——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Has not the hon. Member already spoken?
    MR. LALORsaid, he had not taken part in the discussion so far. He would take the liberty of reminding the Committee that there were thousands of people in Ireland who made their living by the use of explosives. In his neighbourhood there were a great many quarrymen, who would be thrown out of employment if they were not allowed to use gunpowder and dynamite; and, therefore, he thought it imperatively necessary that the clause should be amended.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 24; Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 119.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the next Amendment on the Paper was in his name.
    594
    The second paragraph of the clause under notice said—
    "If any person sell or import, or attempt to sell or import, any arms or ammunition in contravention of any such order, such arms and ammunition shall be liable to be forfeited to Her Majesty, and the person so acting shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
    He proposed to leave out the latter part of the paragraph—namely, "and the person so acting shall be guilty of an offence against this Act." He considered that if any offence were committed in the ordinary course of trade the person committing it would be sufficiently punished by forfeiting the goods. The result of refusing his Amendment would be that a person convicted "before a court of summary jurisdiction," of an offence against the Act, would be liable
    "To be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, or, at the discretion of the court, to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."
    This punishment might be inflicted by a Divisional Justice in Dublin, or "one resident magistrate sitting alone in petty sessions." The Bill, therefore, gave one of Her Majesty's subjects very extraordinary powers over other of Her Majesty's subjects. In the case of the ordinary offender against the Act, the presumption would be that he carried arms or kept them in his house, instead of delivering them up, for the purpose of committing some offence by means of them. This would not be the presumption in the case of the dealer in arms and ammunition. The Lord Lieutenant, it was to be expected, would issue a complicated code for the regulation of the trade—such as they had heard of under other Acts; for instance, the trader might be obliged to keep a register of his stock and his sales, and of the names, addresses, and designations of his customers—of every person to whom he sold a rifle, a revolver, a packet of bullets, or even a dozen of percussion caps. The code might be so complicated that it might be very difficult for the trader to carry it out, or even to understand it; and what he (Mr. Sexton) feared was, that the trader, through inadvertence, or in consequence of a full knowledge of all the circumstances having failed to reach him, might contravene the Act. They might take it for granted that a contravention of the Act by a trader would arise, not from a

    595
    wilful desire to break the law, but from ignorance or inadvertence; and that the ends of justice would be met by forfeiting to the State the matter of the illegal act—namely, the arms or ammunition, without inflicting further punishment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, to leave out from "Majesty" to end of Clause.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If a person, acting through inadvertence, contravenes the law, and thereby renders himself liable to a money penalty or to imprisonment, the punishment in the discretion of the magistrates would probably be very slight, as the offence would not be of a malignant character. But it is necessary also to meet a more serious case, where the offending person has evidently been acting malignantly. It must be remembered that this measure introduces for the first time the option of a fine instead of imprisonment; and I may say I am also prepared to accept the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) that—
    "If, upon the hearing of the charge, the magistrates shall be of opinion that there are circumstances in the case which render it inexpedient to inflict any punishment, they shall have power to dismiss the person charged, without proceeding to a conviction."
    The object of the Bill is to secure the safety of society; and what we desire is that persons shall be prohibited from selling arms to persons who may be considered dangerous and unfit to have arms. Such a case as this might happen. The police might take from a person who was considered a dangerous person a revolver, and yet on the next day a tradesman might deliberately and knowingly sell another revolver to the same man. There must be some means of dealing with such a case. You must inflict some heavy penalty on the man who has deliberately sold that arm to a person whom he knows to have been disarmed by the authorities. The mere forfeiture of the weapon would be no punishment; and it is necessary to make provision for such a case in the Bill.
    596
    What the hon. Member has been doing has been to take the minimum offence and compare it with the maximum penalty, which leaves an unfair impression as to the nature of the punishment provided. We ought to take the maximum possible offence and compare it with the maximum penalty, and then, I think, it would be seen that the penalties provided by the Bill are really very small. No doubt the maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment with hard labour would be a very severe penalty; but, on the other hand, it is not too severe a penalty for such an offence as that which I have specified. That is really the state of the case; and, under the circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    MR. O'DONNELLrose to continue the debate, when
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. O'DONNELL, resuming, said, he thought that the illustration which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had used for the purpose of meeting the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was hardly an illustration at all. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that where, for instance, a dangerous character was deprived of a revolver one day, the trader who to-morrow provided the same dangerous character with another revolver would deservedly incur the highest penalty imposed by the Act. But that was taking a very extreme case. A dangerous character detected by the police with a deadly weapon in his possession would not be in such a condition of liberty that he would be able to purchase another to-morrow. In fact, he would be in gaol, and, consequently, the illustration upon which the right hon. Gentleman relied for meeting the argument of the hon. Member for Sligo was an illustration which would never come into practice. A dangerous character found in possession of a revolver would not have an opportunity of going to a trader on the next day to purchase a fresh revolver, because he would be safely incarcerated. But there were a large number of other cases in which a trader would be liable to be very unjustly punished, if punished

    597
    at all, under the Act. Take the case of a trader in a proclaimed district importing arms and ammunition. It must be remembered that although a district was proclaimed, it was not every person within a proclaimed district who was forbidden to have arms and ammunition, because, under the provisions of this very Act, licences could be granted to individuals in the proclaimed district to carry arms and possess ammunition. Consequently, within a proclaimed district there might be a considerable number of persons who would be entitled to purchase arms and ammunition, so that if a trader imported into the district a large quantity of arms and ammunition, and was accused of importing those arms and ammunition for the use of persons who had no right to carry arms, whereas he had imported them for the use of persons who had a right to carry arms, how was he to be protected under this Act from a miscarriage of justice? He imported arms in order to supply the legitimate wants of persons entitled to carry arms. It might happen that in the course of his business he might sell a few ounces of powder and shot to persons not entitled to have them, in consequence of which a search would be made of his premises, and a considerable quantity of arms, powder, and shot would be found. In this way the whole stock of arms and ammunition introduced for the most legitimate purposes would be liable to be forfeited, and in addition the unfortunate trader would be liable to imprisonment, and to a fine multiplied by as many cases as the Crown authorities chose to construct out of the total amount of arms and ammunition in his possession. It was quite evident, and he was sure the Home Secretary would agree with him that this provision as it stood required limitation. At present the most legitimate trader would be at the mercy of an indirect suspicion; and although he did not go so far as to suppose that all the Irish magistrates were malignant and unscrupulous persons, yet taking them as ordinary human beings, with different amounts of intelligence and morality distributed among them, there would be a sufficient number of magistrates open to the influence of groundless suspicions and prejudice, and although, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said, they ought not to test a
    598
    penal enactment by placing on one side the minimum offence, and en the other the maximum punishment, still, without going that length, they must take into consideration the great probability that when a clause was too loosely drawn, and gave too wide and too extensive a power to exercise private judgment, that private judgment would, in a number of cases, be exercised in a harsh and unjust manner. He trusted, therefore, that the Home Secretary would admit the propriety of limiting the clause. It ought, at least, to be incumbent upon the convicting authority to have it proved to his satisfaction that the alleged criminal was somehow or other voluntarily and deliberately rendering himself amenable to penal consequences. Some onus of proof should be thrown upon the accusing persons, and the onus of disproof should not be thrown too completely on the accused. Judging from the manner in which the Home Secretary had met the reasonable suggestions of the Irish Party, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would meet the reasonable suggestions now made in the same spirit. The safest, surest, and easiest way of facilitating the progress of Business, and of avoiding recourse to extreme measures of any kind, would be to persist, as the Home Secretary had been doing during the last two days, in treating the Irish Members as Representatives of the people of Ireland who had a right to speak on behalf of their constituents, and of having their suggestions properly considered. To reject all their representations after the manner of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was the very worst way of facilitating the Business of the House. He hoped they would continue to have their reasonable objections considered by the Home Secretary, who had shown that he had a mind capable of grasping the exigencies of the case, and that they would not again be troubled with the interference of the right hon. Gentleman who was nominally the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsuggested that some modification should be made in the direction of the Amendment. For instance, the word "wilfully" might be inserted before the word "so," in line 16.
    MR. HEALYpointed out that if the word "wilfully" were added, it should

    599
    be placed at an earlier part of the clause. They had no means of knowing what regulations the Lord Lieutenant would issue; and this was much to be regretted, because if the regulations were made known, the Act in its entirety might be assented to. Those regulations might be reasonable, or otherwise; but if the Lord Lieutenant were to lay down a number of harassing restrictions, the result would be very vexatious to bonâ fide traders. For instance, it might be required that a trader, before importing guns, should give notice to the Lord Lieutenant as to the persons from whom he was about to buy them, or furnish the name of the vessel they were shipped by, together with a copy of the invoice. He was told that the word "wilfully" would obviate the consequence of being supposed to be guilty under this Act; but it would not obviate the vexation that would be caused by such regulations. The clause, as it stood, was directed clearly at persons who made money by legitimate trade in arms. There had always been great delicacy in that House as regarded restriction of trades, and, apart from the political aspect of the question and clause of a Bill which tended in that direction, ought to be jealously guarded. He said, as they were ignorant as to the regulations that might be made with regard to the importation of arms if the clause passed in its then form, a trader wishing to push his trade properly might commit some perfectly innocent blunder, and still be liable, under the Act, to the confiscation of his goods. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), would only shelter him from imprisonment. He trusted, therefore, the word "wilfully" would be added on Report in the early part of the clause.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The word cannot be introduced here unless the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) withdraws his Amendment.
    DR. COMMINSagreed with the hon. Member for Wexford that the case of a person unwillingly acting in the importation of a commercial commodity would not be met by the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury. If the alteration were in this form, "a person wilfully acting shall be liable to the penalties provided by this Act," that would leave the innocent person free from
    600
    penalty, forfeiture, fine, and imprisonment whereas, if the word "wilfully" were introduced alone, it would leave the legitimate and honest trader liable to have his business interfered with and his goods confiscated.
    MR. BIGGARwished to know whether the Government intended to oppose the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury? With reference to the argument of the Home Secretary, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo were adopted, a man might go and supply himself with another weapon immediately from the same tradesman, he must say it was very unlikely that so dangerous a character as that would be able to pay a full fine, nor would he make himself liable to a similar arrest directly afterwards. It would be utterly beyond his power to go to a dealer and buy arms in the way suggested; and, seeing that dealers in arms were very well known, and subject already to regulations with regard to the sale of their goods, there was no reason why they should be still further liable to the penalties under this Bill.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed to bring up on Report the following words:—
    "If, on the hearing of the charge, such justices may be of opinion that there are circumstances in the case which will render it inexpedient to inflict any punishment, they shall have power to dismiss the person charged, without fine or imprisonment."
    The effect of that would be to allow a magistrate to discharge a person after a nominal conviction, if he thought such person had acted through inadvertence. He did not see how the Government could go further than that.
    MR. FINIGAN (who rose amidst great interruption and loud cries of "Divide!"): I do not mind the speeches of hon. Members opposite. I think it better they should open their mouths a little sometimes, instead of keeping them shut. I am glad to hear it, even though it is in bellowing——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must not address himself to any particular part of the House, and should not be discourteous in his observations.
    MR. FINIGAN (amidst repeated cries of "Divide!"): That is a species of calling out which resembles beastly bellowing.
    MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must withdraw the two last words which he used—namely, "beastly bellowing."
    MR. O'DONNELL—[Cries of "Order!" and "Name him!"]—It is to a point of Order that I wish to speak. Mr. O'Connell in this House, replying to Members of the Tory Party—[Cries of "Order!"]—I am speaking to Order. [Cries of "Name him!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already given my ruling that the hon. Member must withdraw the two words which he used.
    MR. CALLAN: What were the words?
    MR. FINIGAN: I want distinctly to understand what two words I have used which you now, Sir, call upon me to withdraw. I contend that the two words which I did use were not used in any personal sense.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member addressed Members of the House in a way which was discourteous to them. If the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw those words, there is only one course I have to submit to the Committee.
    MR. CALLAN: What two words?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the discourteous expression which he used?
    MR. FINIGAN: Would you, Mr. Playfair, be kind enough to point out the exact words?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Certain words reached me which led me to call upon the hon. Gentleman not to use discourteous expressions to the Committee. Instead of withdrawing them, he used another discourteous expression; the words which reached my ear were "beastly bellowing."
    MR. FINIGAN: If, in any sense, the words "beastly bellowing" could be applied personally, I should be very happy and willing to withdraw them. [Loud cries of "Name him!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is not prepared to withdraw those words immediately, I must Name him.
    MR. FINIGAN (amid great disturbance): I rose to withdraw them—["Name!"]—I have withdrawn them; but I wish to point out to you, Sir, that
    602
    I am simply withdrawing them upon your order, rather than suffer the penalty with which you have threatened me.
    MR. O'DONNELL: Now that this question is settled, I rise to Order, and on a point of Order—[Uproar.]—I wish to remind the Committee that the use of the words "beastly bellowing"——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already decided as to those words.
    MR. O'DONNELL[Cries of "Name him!"]: Precisely. I am not objecting to your ruling. I am speaking to a point of Order. ["Order, order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The point of Order on that subject has already been settled.
    MR. O'DONNELL: But I wish to raise a new point of Order, Sir. ["Order, order!"] I am speaking to a new point of Order, and I will state that point in the smallest possible number of words. I will be entirely guided by your ruling; but until I state my point of Order there is nothing for the Chairman. With regard to the use of discourteous language, Mr. O'Connell in this House——[Great uproar.]
    THE CHAIRMAN: That point of Order has been already settled.
    MR. O'DONNELL: No, Sir. I have to speak to a point of Order. ["Name him!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I now Name the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan, Mr. O'Donnell, as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I have not been allowed to speak.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. O'Donnell, Member for Dungarvan, be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    MR. O'DONNELL (remaining seated, with head covered): I beg to state that I shall only be removed from this House by the constituted authorities.
    Question put.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Ayes have it.
    The decision being challenged, and while the House was being cleared for the Division—
    MR. O'DONNELL (remaining seated, with head covered): I have not disobeyed your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I

    603
    was not allowed to state my point of Order; and you are acting grossly against the trust reposed in you in trying to silence, unfairly and unjustly, an elected Member of this House having the same rights as yourself under the Constitution.
    Question again put.
    MR. BIGGAR (remaining seated, with head covered): Mr. Playfair, might I ask, as a matter of Order, whether it is competent to move the suspension of a Member in Committee, or whether it should not be done in a full House, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair?
    THE CHAIRMAN: According to the Rule, as soon as the division is taken, I leave the Chair and report it to the Speaker.
    MR. O'DONNELL (remaining seated, with head covered): Mr. Playfair, am I to remain in the House, or am I qualified to go into the Lobbies? Will it be a breach of Order to remain in the House?—for I do not intend to vote on the question of my own exclusion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman, if he did not intend to vote, should have withdrawn.
    MR. CALLAN: I beg to ask, Sir, whether, when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, it will be in Order for us to impugn your decision?
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 27: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 120.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: In obedience to the Rule, it is now my duty to leave the Chair, and report this circumstance to the House.
    House resumed.
    MR. SPEAKERhaving taken the Chair,
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I have to report to you, Sir, that Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan, having been Named by me as disregarding the authority of the Chair, a Motion was made and carried,
    "That Mr. O'Donnell, Member for Dungarvan, be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan, be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. PARNELL: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. I beg to say that the
    604
    Chairman has not carefully stated the fact to you. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: If that is the statement which the hon. Member has to make, I cannot accept it.
    MR. PARNELL: My point is, that the Chairman of Committees did not Name the hon. Member for Dungarvan in pursuance of the Standing Order of the 28th February, 1880—
    "That, whenever any Member shall have been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, as disregarding the authority of the Chair, or abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the Business of the House,"
    and so on. My point is this—that Mr. Playfair, the Chairman of Committees, did not Name the hon. Member for Dungarvan; but simply referred to him as the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was mentioned for the first time when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary moved the Motion for his suspension; and I submit to you, Sir, that the suspension of the hon. Member is irregular and out of Order, the conditions prescribed by the Standing Order not having been fulfilled.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was not in the House, and he has stated that which everyone who was in the House knows to be incorrect.
    MR. CALLAN: I was in the House, and, knowing what took place, I say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I was sitting, Sir, on this side of the Table and I heard Mr. Playfair Name Mr. O'Donnell.
    MR. CALLAN: I heard Mr. Playfair; and Mr. Lyon Playfair did not Name Mr. O'Donnell.
    MR. SPEAKER: An official Report has been made by the Chairman of the Committee, and I am bound to accept that Report. I have no other course but to put the Question—
    "That Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan, be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting."
    CAPTAIN AYLMER: I may also state that I did not hear the Chairman Name him.
    Question put.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (remaining seated, with head covered)asked, what means there were of instituting an appeal from the decision of the Chairman of Committees?
    MR. CALLAN (also remaining seated, with head covered)wished to know whether there were any means of instituting an inquiry to test the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Aylmer)?
    MR. O'DONNELL (also remaining seated, with head covered): As a point of Order, Sir, I have to ask you, what means are open to me to prove that I did not in the slightest degree disregard the authority of the Chair. [Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!] I was not allowed to state the point of Order to which I rose; and that was that I was not Named by Mr. Lyon Playfair from the beginning to the end of the performance. [Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!] Will it be in Order, Sir, to move that the proceedings, which cannot be interfered with to-day, shall be reviewed at a future meeting of this House?
    MR. SPEAKER (remaining seated): No question on a point of Order can be raised now, except with reference to the division now about to be taken. The Question is—
    "That Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan, be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."
    The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 32: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 121.)
    MR. SPEAKER: Mr. O'Donnell must now withdraw.
    Mr. O'DONNELLaccordingly withdrew from the House.
    MR. CALLANasked the Speaker whether he was now at liberty to move the adjournment of the House?
    Bill again considered in Committee.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. FINIGANsaid, before the untoward incident which had had just occurred, he was endeavouring to urge the Government to make the clause under consideration distinct; and he wished to state why he considered that the spirit of the Amendment should be considered, and why the word "wilful" should be adopted in the previous line of the
    606
    Amendment on Report. He thought if the Bill read—
    "If any person shall wilfully sell or import, or attempt to sell or import, any arms or ammunition," &c.
    that would bring the clause within the meaning of the Amendment, and within the acceptance of the Government. He did not see that the clause was just as it stood, for the Lord Lieutenant was not compelled to make orders from time to time, the provision simply saying that he might from time to time make orders; and he thought that when that power was taken advantage of, as much legal formula should be maintained in that part of the clause as was consistent with law and reason. Therefore, he did not see why the Government could not accept the suggestion, and so avoid wasting the time of the Committee, and delaying the passage of the measure through Committee. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo; and as the spirit of the Amendment was quite in keeping with the statement made by the Government every end of justice would be attained.
    MR. DAWSONdesired to support the views of his hon. Friend (Mr. Finigan) upon the Amendment, and expressed the pleasure with which he saw the tendency on the part of the Government to consider with respect and with attention the propositions made from that side of the House. He regretted an occurrence which was not characterized with the dignity and deportment which ought to characterize Members of that House, and which tended to interrupt the good feeling with which the Government was giving attention to that important question. He pointed out that an English Member had made the suggestion which had originated the latter part of the discussion; the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) having proposed the insertion of one word into the clause which would materially affect it. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had pointed out that it would not have been so vexatious in an earlier part of the clause; and the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), finding that it would be impossible to go back and place the word "wilful" where they desired it, had proposed to introduce the words, "and liable to the penalties under this

    607
    Act," which would entirely alter the clause, and in the direction they desired. If the Government would adopt either of those suggestions, and give him (Mr. Dawson) and his hon. Friends to understand that on Report, when it would be possible to put the proposed words in any portion of the clause, they would do so, he had no doubt the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have already stated that I shall be happy to put in the word "wilful." I do not understand what hon. Members mean by putting it in earlier. If they mean any alteration in the position of the word, that might be done on Report. If there is no difficulty as to the part of the line, I think it will be a very proper thing, and may very well be considered.
    MR. SEXTON: On the understanding that the word "wilful" is inserted in line 13, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department again, whether some provision would be made for compensating traders in the possession of arms and gunpowder, which had hitherto been perfectly legal articles of commerce?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have already stated that I am going to bring up a clause on that subject.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: That will include traders?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There will be no distinction between traders and other people.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes 181; Noes 31: Majority 150.—(Div. List, No. 122.)
    Clause 4 (Supplemental provisions).
    MR. FINIGANsaid, he did not think that the Amendment he was about to move would take any time for its consideration. The Bill stated that the notice of a proclamation by the Lord Lieutenant should be introduced into that House within 14 days. He wished to substitute the word "seven" for "fourteen." He did not see how there could be any valid objection to the Amendment; and therefore he hoped
    608
    that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would agree to it at once.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, to omit the word "fourteen," and insert the word "seven."—(Mr. Finigan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the hon. Member will not make a point of this. The fact is that the terms of the Bill are a common form in Acts of this kind. Seven days is considered rather too short a time. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman reduced the matter to an absurdity. He (Mr. Callan) had not thought that any Member of that House, much less a responsible Minister of the Crown, would have the effrontery to get up and make, with so solemn a face, such an absurd statement. Such a grave and voluminous document might surely be produced in less than 14 days. Was it because some Irish Member had moved the Amendment that such an absurd and ridiculous reply was given? He wondered that the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to make such a statement in the presence of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister exercised a determined influence over the other occupants of the Treasury Bench. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might say "Oh, oh;" but he remembered a summer evening some years ago when, from the Front Opposition Bench, the Prime Minister, on the Public Worship Regulation Bill, gave a severe castigation to the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore the Prime Minister did exercise a determined influence. He was surprised at the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had ventured to use in that House.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not be unwilling to apply the same principle as that which was applied with such a soothing effect last night—namely, splitting the difference. Suppose they were to agree upon 10 days as the limit. He thought with his hon. Friend that 14 days was an unreasonably long time. Irish Members were anxious that these proclamations, which might be brought into operation very rapidly, should not

    609
    be applied until the House had an opportunity of examining them.
    MR. HEALYthought the right hon. Gentleman might accept that Amendment. Almost every hon. Member, he believed, had a grievance against the Queen's printers. Why should not the screw be applied to them, so that the information might reach the House in loss than 14 days?
    MR. FINIGANsaid, that, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONthought the next Amendment, which stood in his name, an important one. He proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "or Under Secretary."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, leave out the words "or Under Secretary."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am willing to agree to that.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    THE CHAIRMANWith regard to the next two Amendments, the matter proposed in the first has already been dealt with in a sub-section of the 1st clause. It, therefore, cannot be put. The second is one in which the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) desires to make a condition that the proclamation shall be posted on the doors of every place of worship seven days before it comes into force. As the date of the proclamation has been already determined, that Amendment, also, cannot be put.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 198; Noes 30: Majority 168.—(Div. List, No. 123.)
    Clause 5 (Penalties).
    MR. M'COANbegged to move the next Amendment. It was in line 1, page 3, after "exceeding," to leave out "three," and insert "one." The clause read thus—
    "Any person acting in contravention of this Act, shall be liable to be summoned before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, to be impri-
    610
    soned for a term not exceeding three months, or at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
    His reason for moving the Amendment was this. The object of that Bill was avowedly not punitive, but preventive. He thought that object would be sufficiently and adequately met by imposing a penalty of one month s imprisonment for contravention of its terms. The offences under the Act were not strictly moral offences at all, and therefore the lesser penalty would be sufficient. He wished to remind the Committee that the offences under that Act were simply the possession of arms or ammunition, or the importation of those articles, as well as the selling of arms in the prescribed districts. They might be called disciplinary offences created for the purposes of peace preservation. They were not of an immoral character. It should be borne in mind also that one month's imprisonment was no small punishment to inflict on an Irish peasant or shopkeeper, involving, as it also did, a considerable money loss. He ventured, therefore, to think that the provision seemed to have been dictated by a feeling of vindictiveness, rather than of mere prevention. If the object of the Government was not vindictive, he hoped they would see that all disciplinary purposes of the Bill might be met by fixing the maximum punishment at one month instead of three, more especially as conviction would carry with it, not only the imprisonment of the offender, but the confiscation of the arms. The purposes of peace preservation would be fairly served by seizing the weapons with which it was believed that outrages would be committed. The right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, be doing a gracious as well as a merciful thing in accepting the Amendment. Probably his answer would be that this Bill was very much more merciful than that of 1875, and, no doubt, that was true, for he recognized the humanity and merciful sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman, although at the same time he thought that that spirit might be carried farther. The greater mercy of the present measure, as compared with that of 1875, was an argument which the right hon. Gentleman should hardly fall back upon, since the fact that an over severe penalty was provided in the old Bills furnished no sort of precedent for the present measure. They

    611
    had to deal with things as they existed in 1881, not as they existed 10 or 15 years back; in short, for all purposes of peace preservation and substantial justice, a penalty of one month's imprisonment for being found in the possession of arms was, to his mind, quite sufficient.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, after "exceeding," leave out "three," and insert "one."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the clause.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member (Mr. M'Coan) has only done the Government justice when he says we have no desire to make the Bill vindictive; the punishments are not intended to be severe, nor do I think they will be under the Bill as it at present stands. We fix the term of imprisonment at three months, for the reason that it is the ordinary punishment awarded for venial offences under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. We have eliminated from the Bill the element of hard labour, so that really we stand here in this Bill on the lowest scale of punishment—I do not mean to say ever fixed, because that is asserting a negative in which one might be wrong—but I doubt if you could find any scale of punishment lower than that in the Bill. Again, I must remark that the three months' imprisonment is the maximum imprisonment. When you see "three months" in the Bill, it does not follow that every man convicted under this measure is sure to have three months' imprisonment. Everyone knows that that maximum punishment will hardly be given except in aggravated cases, and that the punishment will hardly ever be more than one month. The object of reserving the maximum is to provide for aggravated cases. That is why the proposition is drawn up in that way, and not because we wish, or intend, or expect, that the maximum punishment will be inflicted in every or even in many cases. I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that we have taken the lowest scale of punishment which is fixed for the punishment of offences much lighter than those dealt with by this Bill.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORtrusted that the Amendment would be insisted upon, and contended that the whole course of the Government with regard to this
    612
    punishment was grossly unfair to the Irish people, and he thought he could show the Committee why. They had allowed the people to purchase arms, without the slightest sign or intimation that they intended to interfere with their possession of those arms; and now, having got the people in possession of them in large numbers, they said—"We will give you three months' imprisonment if we find you in possession of those arms." The right hon. Gentleman said that three months was the maximum; but if he knew the magistrates of Ireland as well he (Mr. O'Connor) knew them he would be aware of this, that the maximum, instead of being the exception, would prove to be the rule. They were giving the large powers of this measure to a magistracy that was determined to have vengeance upon the people; for even if the Government were not desirous of being vindictive, the magistrates were determined to be so. When they said "three months can be inflicted under this Act," they practically told the magistrates to inflict three months' imprisonment; and, whether they told the magistrates directly or not to inflict such a punishment, they might rest satisfied that they would do it. An hon. Friend had pointed out that when they took the arms away from the people they had really done as much as they had a right to do. The people had been allowed to obtain possession of the arms—he would not say whether or not it was good policy on the part of the Government to allow that, but they had done so—and now they wished to punish the people for availing themselves of their rights. For his own part, he should have been disposed to go even much farther than his hon. Friend, and to have moved that imprisonment be omitted from the Bill altogether, or only inflicted when an offender was unable to pay a small fine. But as the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, refuse to accede to such a proposal, he would suggest, as a compromise, that the Government should allow two months to be the maximum.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he would rather see three months' imprisonment given to those who recommended the Irish people to get arms. At the same time, it must be recollected that the working of this Bill was not to

    613
    be left to the ordinary magistrates, but was to be carried into operation by the stipendiaries. Although two justices of the peace could inflict the penalty, it was provided that one of them, at least, should be a stipendiary. The people, therefore, were not without a safeguard.
    MR. BLAKEconcurred in what had been said by hon. Gentlemen sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and considered that the right hon. Gentleman ought to reduce the maximum punishment to one month for the first offenceable act. He had been engaged for nearly 10 years in connection with a Government Department in Ireland, and it had become his duty, in many cases, to advise that the sentences of magistrates should be mitigated, in consequence of memorials praying for reduction of penalties. In numerous cases that had come under his observation he had had to suggest to the Lord Lieutenant to mitigate the punishments inflicted by the magistrates, and his recommendation was hardly ever refused. He could say, from his experience, that in many instances, if the maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment was inflicted, it would lead to the positive ruin of those who had to endure it. He spoke in this matter as a magistrate and as a Government official of nearly 10 years' standing, and declared to the Committee that there was a strong tendency on the part of the magistracy of Ireland to give the maximum penalty in almost every case for certain offences of the character they were now dealing with. To men who were engaged in ordinary occupations, and who had wives and families depending upon them, one month's imprisonment was quite enough. It might be possible for such persons, after their imprisonment, to resume employment; but if they were compelled to absent themselves from work for three months, it might involve absolute ruin. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentlemant hat he should modify the clause, so as to provide that for the first offence not more than one month's imprisonment should be inflicted, and for the second or any other offence a term not exceeding two months; and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) would be satisfied with that. With very few exceptions, the proposed changes would
    614
    be likely to meet the necessities of the case, and he thought the Government might very well make the concession.
    MR. HEALYconsidered the suggestion of the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Blake) a reasonable one, and that the Government should make the punishment cumulative, so that a man, who by inadvertence or otherwise, committed a first offence, would get a lighter punishment than if he had committed more than one offence. With regard to the Irish magistracy, he could speak from his own knowledge that if this Bill passed in its present form, they would consider the maximum penalty the penalty to be inflicted; that was the natural tendency of the magisterial mind in Ireland. If they saw a certain term of imprisonment fixed in an Act of Parliament, they at once jumped to the conclusion that was the penalty which Parliament had in its mind when it passed the measure. The magistrates, or, at any rate, many of them, were opposed to the people in sympathy, and were inclined to inflict vindictive penalties. He should have no difficulty in agreeing to the proposition of the Government if the measure were to be put in operation by a magistracy such as they had in England; but those who drew up such Acts as this did it in ignorance of the kind of magistracy they had in Ireland. It was amusing to read in Irish newspapers the statements of those Irish Pashas on the Bench. Each one looked upon himself almost as a Pope; and on any occasion, however trivial, gave the people warnings and gave them advice, and described the crimes that were brought before them as very heinous and deserving of serious punishment, No matter what the offence might be, the magistrates read out to the people those excellent lessons which, when they were young, they were in the habit of hearing in Sunday-schools. That was the class of men on the Bench in Ireland; therefore, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman behind him a reasonable one, that for the first offence the penalty should be less than for any subsequent one. As yet they knew nothing of the kind of punishment that would be inflicted as a ride by the Irish magistrates; therefore, they were discussing the matter under a disadvantage, and could only speculate upon

    615
    their knowledge and experience of the justices.
    MR. PLUNKETthought the penalty proposed in the Bill was as light a punishment as could be stated as a maximum for an offence so serious as that dealt with by the Bill. The penalty was far lighter than any hitherto proposed or enacted for the purpose of meeting the evil the Bill was levelled against; nevertheless, if the Government were prepared to retain the provision as it stood, he was prepared to support them. He had abstained, hitherto, from saying a word as to what they had heard to-night, and during many nights, in condemnation of officials who administered the law in Ireland, from Members who put themselves forward as being the Members for that country, though they seldom could muster as many as 30 in a division. Those hon. Members who professed to know all about the Irish magistracy—[Mr. HEALY: Who know more than you.]—those hon. Members had said that if English Representatives only knew how the Irish magistrates performed their duties—[Cries of "Question!"] He was perfectly in Order. Those statements had been made from time to time all through that evening, on Motion after Motion. The English Members had been told that they knew nothing about Ireland or about the Irish magistrates, and that Irish magistrates were wholly unreliable. It had been said that the full penalty would be inflicted under the Bill by the bad Irish magistrates; and he had heard the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Blake) lending himself to those statements and quoting his official experience in condemning the magistrates. If the hon. Member had had complaints of that kind to make, why did he not make them when he was himself an official in Ireland? He (Mr. Plunket) had heard with extreme regret those statements from the hon. Member for Waterford; and against them he must declare that he himself had had considerable experience of life in Ireland, both officially and from daily contact with the magistrates, and he had scarcely ever heard of a single case to support the general accusations thus recklessly brought against the magistracy. If he had heard of any cases they had been wonderfully few, con-
    616
    sidering, the number of magistrates who had to deal with important matters in Ireland. No considerable number of charges had been brought against individual magistrates, so as to give their friends a chance of meeting and contradicting them; and those which had been, as far as he was aware, had never, in a single instance, been substantiated. He must deprecate the practice of wholesale condemning and treating with contempt a body of gentlemen who had to discharge most onerous duties under serious and difficult circumstances.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to make a personal explanation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Plunket) had asked why he, when he occupied an official position, had never complained of the conduct of magistrates. In reply, he had to state that he had done so, by availing himself of the only means open to him as an official, by condemning their sentences as excessive in scores of instances by recommending a mitigation of punishment to successive Lord Lieutenants when he held office under the Irish Government, which was usually attended to.
    MR. DAWSONvery much regretted that the first person in that debate to get up and endeavour to interfere with the course of mercy the Irish Members were advocating, was the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made it his business to take part in the discussion, it was a pity he did not seek to mitigate the punishment his countrymen were to receive, rather than the reverse. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had got such a complete answer from the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Blake), that he (Mr. Dawson) would not go into that matter. He would not leave it to the Irish magistrates to fix the amount of punishment, because he agreed with his hon. Friends that those gentlemen would only look at the maximum and inflict that penalty. He would remind the Committee of a case that he himself was cognizant of. Magistrates were led in most of their decisions by petty sessions clerks and officials, and he remembered an instance in which a book was handed up to the magistrate on the Bench and examined into by that dignitary. The book was a dictionary; but the magistrate, who had received it

    617
    from the clerk as though it were a volume of statutes, seemed to examine a page of it very carefully, and then announced a fine as though he had got it from the book. Well, when they had such people as that to deal with, and knew that it would be in their power to take away a man from his wife and children for three precious months, he thought it was not too much to ask of the Committee to put down the punishment for the first and other offences in black and white.
    MR. LALORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had spoken of the magistracy in Ireland in complimentary terms, and he (Mr. Lalor) was sorry to be unable to agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after a life-long residence in the country. He did not, however, stand up for the purpose of censuring the magistrates, although he had for the last few months seen a number of cases where harshness had been practised on the people of Ireland by them. Questions had been put in that House, by three or four different Members within the last few days, with regard to the practice of magistrates of sending country people to gaol without bail; 200 or 600 of those cases had occurred altogether—cases in which it was quite optional for the magistrates to admit the people to bail whilst awaiting trial for the offences they were accused of. But it was well known in Ireland that the people were sent to gaol by the magistrates, merely as a vindictive punishment. He did not, however, wish to trouble the Committee on that matter, as, to his mind, it had nothing to do with the question before them. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared to look upon the possession of arms by the people of Ireland as a crime, and seemed to think that they should be punished as guilty of crime, when found in possession of arms. But whatever arms the people of Ireland had were property, and what the Committee wore going to do by that Bill was to deprive them of property. It was probable that men endowed with just minds in Ireland would not be able to see the justice of that enactment; they might not be able to agree to give up property which they had purchased with their own money, and which the Government had allowed
    618
    them to purchase. Would it, therefore, be just to send them to gaol for three months—not alone to deprive them of their property, but also of their liberty? For his own part, he could not conceive anything more unfair.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had stated that three months was a very small penalty for the great and serious offence with which the measure dealt; but he would remind the Committee that the Bill itself created the offence. The measure made it an offence in Ireland to do what was the Constitutional right of every Englishman; and they were told that while it was right for an Englishman to carry arms, if an Irishman did it he should have three months imprisonment, and consider that he had got off very lightly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman complained that attacks had been made upon the Irish magistrates, but he (Mr. Leamy) had not been a party to those attacks. He should like, however, to say a word about the two classes of magistrates they had in Ireland—the paid and unpaid magistrates. He declared, if he were charged with a political offence, or a colourable political offence, he would much rather be brought before one of the paid magistrates than before one of the unpaid. At a time of public excitement, when the public mind was agitated, the unpaid magistrates thought only of vindicating the law, and consequently were apt to inflict the greatest amount of punishment upon the offenders brought before them. No doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin would agree with him in this, that the paid magistrates were much more likely to be lenient at such times as the present than the unpaid. The proposition of the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Blake) was a reasonable one, and for no first offence should more than one month's imprisonment be inflicted; it would be time to give a man the three months when charged with a second, or subsequent offence.
    DR. CUMMINSwas of opinion that hon. Gentlemen in that House were in the habit of looking at Irish matters through English spectacles; and it certainly appeared to him that the persons who had drawn up that measure had

    619
    done so. Everyone who knew anything of the administration of law in England, was aware that the magistrates, whether paid or unpaid, were inclined to keep as far away as possible from the maximum penalty, and that it was a very rare thing to find a magistrate inflicting that penalty when acting in a summary manner; they only did it when there was something aggravating in the offence. Anyone, however, who knew anything of Ireland, knew that exactly the opposite occurred, and that instead of keeping as far away as possible from the maximum penalty, they got as near to it as they could. On this matter, the testimony of the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Blake) was amply sufficient; and he told them that in scores of cases that had come under his observation he had had to request the Chief Secretary for Ireland to mitigate the punishments inflicted by the magistrates, and that in no case was his recommendation refused. He did not think a stronger case could be given. He certainly must complain of the spirit shown by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who had occupied the position of Solicitor General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had declared himself ignorant of the improper conduct that had been charged against the Irish magistrates—of their being so imbued with the spirit of animosity and vindictiveness against the people, that they would inflict the highest penalty they could upon them; and he would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to show a different spirit to that of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin; he would ask them to take example from what they had seen, and to look at the spirit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a thing to avoid. There was one further observation he should like to make, and it was this. The penalty imposed by the Bill was three months imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding £20, at the discretion of a bench of magistrates. He had nothing to say with regard to the term of imprisonment, although he certainly thought that one month's imprisonment would be amply sufficient; but with regard to the penalty of £20——
    THE CHAIRMAN: That question is raised in the next Amendment.
    DR. COMMINSthought that, having regard to the words of the clause, he was entitled to deal with both descriptions of punishment together. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would see that one month was sufficient for a first offence, with a maximum punishment of three months for repeated offences. An intermediate penalty between one and three months would also considerably improve the Bill, and render the measure, which, under any circumstances, must be very unpalateable to the people of Ireland, less disagreeable. What was of still more importance, it would make the people think that the object of the Government was not so oppressive towards them or so vindictive as they might be led to suppose. If such a feeling were produced in the country, it would have far more value and effect than to insist upon heavy punishment.
    MR. FINIGANthought the Committee might very easily accept that Amendment, because the Bill dealt, if he might so say, with a secondary class of people who might break the law. He wished to point out to the Committee that under the previous Coercion Act, passed by the present Government, power was given to arrest any man whom the Government or their officers suspected of committing any agrarian crime, or inciting to treason, treason-felony, or other treasonable practices. Now, he took it that there would be very few people arrested under this particular Act, and those who would be arrested under it would, he thought, be shown to have been guilty of negligence in performing their duty rather than of any desire to break the law. For instance, the proclamation of a district might be promulgated and the Act put in force at one or two days' notice, and a dealer in arms, or a farmer, or a townsman possessing arms, might not have had time to give up such arms, or the fact that he he was required to do so might have escaped his memory. He did not think that such people ought to be punished as severely as persons who committed any ordinary crime were liable to be punished under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. He certainly thought it would be quite sufficient, as proposed by the Amendment, to reduce the punishment to one month for a first offence. This would really cover all the ground

    621
    Her Majesty's Government proposed to cover by this measure. Even one month's imprisonment would be a very extreme penalty for a mere mistake or some error in judgment, or for not exercising sufficient care, or for some inattention arising from not having had sufficient notice of the Act. Viewed from a correct point of view, he thought that one month's imprisonment ought to be the maximum punishment. He, therefore, hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, and prescribe one month's imprisonment, reserving the higher punishment for a second offence. In the case of a second offence, there would be evidence afforded that the person offending was wilfully contravening the Act; but, as the case now stood, there would be no evidence of the wilful contravention of the Act. His own opinion was that the Government should carry out the Act with as much mercy as possible.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should be glad if I could accept the Amendment; but I must remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Finigan) that it is necessary to keep a maximum penalty for a maximum offence. We may have the case of a man running a cargo of arms contrary to law. He may be running a whole cargo of rifles or revolvers, and for such an offence surely three months' imprisonment without hard labour would only be a very small penalty. I may also remind the hon. Gentleman that in this Bill we have introduced for the first time the alternative of a money fine. This, I think, is a very great mitigation of the severity of former Acts, which gave nothing but imprisonment. Here we give the alternative of a moderate money fine. This is a great concession; and looking at the whole matter, and having regard to the possible maximum offence, I do not think that the possible maximum penalty is too high. As far as possible every opportunity will be given for mitigating the penalty where it ought to be mitigated. I am also prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), which provides that—
    "If, upon the hearing of a charge, such justices shall be of opinion that there are circumstances in the case which render it inexpedient to inflict any punishment, they shall have power to dismiss the person charged without proceeding to a conviction."
    MR. M'COANwished to explain, shortly, that he accepted the compromise offered by the right hon. Gentleman. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: What compromise?] The compromise referred to was the intimation conveyed by the right hon. Gentleman that he would accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). On that understanding, he (Mr. M'Coan) would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. M'COANsaid, the next Amendment was one upon somewhat similar lines, and was intended to reduce the money penalty of £20 to £5. He did not think the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, with which he concluded his last remarks, would tell in favour of the necessity of retaining the maximum amount of the penalty. In the case of the maximum offence of a person attempting to run a whole cargo of arms, the Committee had settled that it would be in the power of the magistrates to inflict an imprisonment of three months. This, however, would be an exceedingly rare offence, and one one in 100 such cases would become amenable under the Act. He, therefore, proposed that where it became a question of an alternative between imprisonment and a fine for the possession of arms, the maximum money penalty should be reduced to £5. In the case of a tenant farmer, or a farmer's son, or a peasant, or any of the numerous class of persons whom they were told now carried rifles or revolvers in Ireland, a penalty of £5, even supposing the magistrate might not award the graver punishment of imprisonment, would be a very substantial punishment; £5 to a poor Irish peasant, or a farm labourer, who had been able to save 10 s. or 15 s. to buy a revolver, would be a heavy penalty indeed; and he ventured to think that the magistrate would be armed with quite sufficient power in regard to money punishment if the maximum were reduced from £20 to £5. He would still retain the alternative power of inflicting a term of imprisonment, and where he thought it was not a case for imprisonment, he might impose a fine. Under such circumstances, it would be quite sufficient if it were provided that the fine imposed should not exceed £5.

    623
    The right hon. Gentleman had made some important concessions in the course of the discussion of these Amendments, and he (Mr. M'Coan) hoped he would carry his concessions still further by accepting this proposal, which would not touch the essence of the Bill nor weaken the power of the Executive. The magistrate would still be able to preserve the peace and to carry out the objects of the Bill, if the money penalty were reduced as he now proposed.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, after "exceeding," leave out "twenty," and insert "five."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would ask the Committee to consider that in the present Bill we are inflicting a money penalty instead of imprisonment and that that will necessarily amount to a mitigation of punishment. But if we were to reduce the maximum money penalty to £5, the magistrates, in many cases, would pass a sentence of imprisonment rather than impose a fine. Therefore, if you keep the penalty at £20, the magistrates will be much more likely to inflict a money penalty than sentence a man to imprisonment. Lot us look at this penalty of £20, and see what it is. It is the penalty given in the Game Act for shooting without a licence. Surely, this is an offence of the same character. It is quite true that some persons inadvertently shoot without a licence. I hope that no hon. Member of this House has ever done so; but, if he has, the law has provided for such a case by subjecting him to a money penalty of £20. Whether, if you fix the maximum penalty at £20, the magistrates would be likely to inflict it to the full extent or not, I do not know. According to my observation, I should say not. Then, having regard to the fact that the maximum penalty would not often be imposed, and that a lower maximum penalty would increase rather than diminish the chance of imprisonment, I do not think I ought to accept the Amendment.
    DR. COMMINSwished to point out that the penalty for shooting without a licence went to the Crown. It was a penalty, in fact, for not paying £3 for a licence to shoot, which was a different
    624
    thing altogether. Here the penalty imposed was not for contravening the Excise Laws and defrauding the Revenue, but for an entirely different offence. In the same way, in the case of a dog licence, although the licence was only 5s. the penalty was £5. There, again, the penalty was heavy, in order that persons might be compelled to take out licences in order to put money into the Treasury, and not for the mere purpose of punishing any offence, whether criminal or quasi-criminal. Here it was a punishment for a criminal offence, and had nothing to do with defrauding the Revenue. It should also be taken into consideration that the magistrates would have the power, if they were of opinion that the money penalty was not sufficient, to sentence the offender to imprisonment. Consequently there were adequate means of punishing offences according to their criminality. In cases, however, where the offence did not partake of any criminal malignity, it seemed somewhat hard, and the power was likely to be abused if it were left to the magistrates to inflict a penalty of £20; £20 was a very considerable sum, indeed, to a very large class of the people who were likely to come under the purview of the Act. There were many farmers in Ireland whose occupations did not exceed 15 acres, and there were some 200,000 in the country whose farms were only to the extent of 15 acres or so. To such a man a penalty of £20 would be complete ruin. It would inevitably make him a bankrupt, if such a man could be a bankrupt. It was, therefore, most desirable to make the penalty somewhat more proportionate to the means of paying which the person liable to the penalty might have. A person fined £20 for sporting without a licence was not liable to be deprived of all his worldly possessions in case of non-payment; whereas the Irish peasant tenant, with a farm of 15 or 20 acres, would be liable to have everything he possessed in the world swept away at the option of the magistrates, and would thus be made even a more malignant criminal than any whom the Act proposed to deal with.
    MR. WARTONrose for the purpose of expressing an earnest hope that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was at present in charge of the Bill, would not make any more concessions. He was sorry that the right

    625
    hon. Gentleman had, upon pressure, yielded upon so many points. It seemed to him that some sort of fatality possessed any person who addressed the Government upon the question.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANrose to Order. He wished to know whether the remarks of the hon. and learned Member were at all applicable to the Amendment before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. and learned Member is about to apply them.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he simply wished to express a hope that, in a Shakesperian sense, the "native hue" of the right hon. Gentleman's "resolution" would not be "sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought" and feebleness of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The observations of the hon. and learned Member have certainly no bearing upon the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that with regard to the penalty of £20, it was a very moderate one for the offence. If a man imported 1,200 stand of arms, the penalty would only amount to 4d. each; and if the proposal of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) were accepted, it would only be 1d.
    MR. LEAMYdid not think the Secretary of State for the Home Department anticipated that anyone would import 1,200 rifles; and if such a thing were done, even a fine of £20 would be an insufficient penalty. But in such a case the magistrate would not impose a money penalty at all, but would pass a sentence of imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the maximum penalty were reduced from £20 to £5, it would have the effect of sending a larger number of persons to gaol, because if the magistrates could not impose a heavy money penalty, they would pass a sentence of imprisonment. That observation would seem to imply that the magistrates should inflict the heaviest penalty they could. He (Mr. Leamy) believed it would be found that out of every 10 persons charged under the Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of £5, nine would be compelled to go to gaol for want of the £5; £5 would be a very serious penalty indeed in Ireland.
    MR. GILLthought the Amendment before the Committee was a very reasonable one, because he believed that it
    626
    would only be necessary to enforce a fine in minor cases. In most of the more important cases it was likely that imprisonment would be what the magistrates would decide upon; and although the Home Secretary said that if the fine was too low, the magistrates might imprison a person whom otherwise they would have fined, he certainly thought that such a proceeding would show a vindictive spirit on the part of the magistrates, which the Government altogether disclaimed in bringing in the Bill. With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who said that £20 would be much too small a fine to inflict upon a man who was convicted of importing 1,200 rifles, the hon. Member seemed to forget that, instead of paying at the rate of 4d. each, the offender would have to pay a penalty of £3,000 or £4,000, seeing that the rifles, worth, at least, £3 apiece, would be confiscated.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 247; Noes 37: Majority 210.—(Div. List, No. 124.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 2, after the word "pounds," to insert "but, if, upon the hearing of the charge, such justices shall be of opinion that there are circumstances in the case which render it inexpedient to inflict any punishment, they shall have power to dismiss the person charged without proceeding to a conviction."—(Major Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope I shall not incur the further displeasure of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) in agreeing to this Amendment. Perhaps, however, the hon. and learned Member will be reconciled to my feebleness in so doing, because a similar Amendment was agreed to by the late Government in the Act of 1875.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman need not fear his displeasure for having kept his word. As the right hon. Gentleman had already promised to include a provision of the kind in the Bill, he (Mr. Warton) certainly did not think there was any feebleness in accepting the Amendment. His remarks had applied to any future weakness the right hon. Gentleman might be guilty of.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would remind the Committee that the Amendment referred to of the Act of 1875 was very much objected to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the present Attorney General at the time.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Words inserted accordingly.
    MR. HEALYpointed out that a magistrate might inflict a fine upon a prisoner, knowing that he would have no chance of paying it, simply for the purpose of sending him to prison. He, therefore, proposed to insert words to the effect that the maximum fine inflicted in any case should not exceed the prisoner's means of paying it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee having already fixed the maximum penalty at £20, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford, proposing another maximum penalty, would be inconsistent with what has been passed by the Committee.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the only word upon which the Committee had not yet decided was the word "twenty."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County (Major Nolan) has been introduced after the word "pounds;" and, therefore, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) cannot be put.
    MR. LEAMY, in moving an Amendment providing that no person sentenced to imprisonment under the Act should be required to sleep on a plank bed, said, one of the prison regulations under the Act of 1875 was that a prisoner, during one month of his sentence, should be required to sleep on a plank bed. It was only fair that a distinction should be drawn between prisoners convicted under this Bill and those who were found guilty of ordinary offences against the law. Whatever might be the opinion as to this Act, he submitted that persons sentenced under it would be guilty of a political offence, and not of an ordinary offence; and, for that reason, he thought the harsh regulation to which he referred should not take effect upon them.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 2, after the word "pounds," to insert "but no person who is sentenced to
    628
    any term of imprisonment under this Act shall be required during any part of his sentence to sleep on a plank bed."—(Mr. Leamy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONthought the argument of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) deserved attention. The persons imprisoned under this Bill would not belong to the criminal classes, and, therefore, would not be habituated to crime. It was perfectly well known that the reason why the ordinary criminal was made to sleep on a plank bed, put upon the treadmill, and so forth, was that he was a man of such indurated moral nature that he could not be deterred from crime unless by extreme penalties. But, taking the case of an imprisoned farmer from any part of Ireland, he would be found to be a person leading an honest life, except so far as he might have broken the provisions of this Bill; and, therefore, it would not be right to subject hint to the penalty of harsh treatment as well as detention.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot agree that this Bill is to be treated as a Bill for dealing with political offences. On the contrary, I always understood from hon. Members opposite that they altogether discarded revolvers as having nothing to do with politics at all. Again, this is not a Bill to regulate prison rules with regard to particular offences. I will also point out to the hon. Member that his Amendment, although it condemns plank beds, does not say what sort of beds are to be used—whether a man found in the possession of a rifle should have a feather bed, and the man having a revolver a spring bed. But all this is going into detail. We have taken care that this shall not be a severe imprisonment by excluding hard labour; but the Amendment of the hon. Member is quite incompatible with any just principles of the Bill.
    MR. DAWSONhoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division. He thought the punishment of a plank bed was a very serious thing indeed. He would remind the Committee that on the question of disarming the Basutos, the sympathy of the Prime Minister was elicited for those people, and he said he hoped that the just, humane, and wise anxieties which existed might be miti-

    629
    gated by the facts to which he had alluded. Was it possible that less anxiety was to be felt in the sufferings of the people of Ireland than was felt in the Basutos? He could not believe that would be so, and therefore he trusted the Government would re-consider the matter. With regard to the plank bed, there could be no doubt it should be exclusively used to deter men from the commission of crime, and not inflicted for the political offence of the possession of arms.
    MR. CALLANpointed out for the information of hon. Members who might not be acquainted with the nature of a plank bed, that it was simply a plank raised at one end some three inches higher than at the other. Its breadth was about 18 inches; it was placed on the floor, and had a wooden pallet, on which the head rested, with nothing between it and the wood. [Laughter.] This matter was by no means one to be treated with levity, and he hoped the hon. Member who was so impatient would never have occasion to experience a plank bed himself. Take the case of a respectable farmer, who, having a licence only to keep arms in his house, sees the destruction of his crops by crows and vermin, and is tempted to take his gun into the fields. He is arrested, brought before game-preserving magistrates—who were just as bad in Ireland as they were in England—and gets, as part of his sentence of imprisonment, a month on a plank bed, for acting in contravention of the Statute. He said this infliction should only be used to deter evil-doers, and not imposed upon respectable farmers who might come accidentally under the operation of the Act. Why, he asked, should not the magistrates have at least a discretionary power in this matter?
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought the Amendment ought to be accepted. For his part, he should never cease to protest against the use of planks—they were not beds—as a means of discipline in prisons; and he regretted to say that this discussion had shown how, what he could not help calling the brutality of the punishment, had become so familiar that hon. Members thought nothing of its horrors. When the late Government, in an Act which in his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) opinion would ever stain their memory, introduced this punishment, they included women and children.
    630
    [Laughter.] The merriment of hon. Members only showed how quickly, when an Englishman was scratched, the brute appeared—for it was brutality to inflict such cruelty, and he believed their forefathers would have shrunk from making unfortunate persons pass the night upon a plank. It was only by a most persistent fight that some relaxation of the rules was effected on behalf of women and children. One of the concessions agreed to was that a hollow should be made in the planks; and it was not till after a great fight, a few days ago, that the Government agreed that prisoners under the new Act should not be confined in rooms without wooden floors. The Amendment was opposed by a right hon. Gentleman who claimed, and probably justly claimed, credit for great humanity; and it was not till the last moment that he accepted it. He trusted that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would consent to the Amendment, and not inflict plank beds upon prisoners under the Act.
    MR. PARNELLregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to refuse to accept the Amendment; but he trusted that, on re-consideration, he would see that it was not an unreasonable one. The right hon. Gentleman should recollect that, after all, he was not responsible for the introduction of plank beds. They were introduced by his Predecessor; they were in use in comparatively few prisons in England and Scotland, and, he believed, they were not at all in use in Ireland. But when they were extensively adopted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the last Government, they were also adopted in Ireland—he supposed for the sake of uniformity. It was argued that it was proper to subject the criminal classes to some such discipline as the plank bed for the first month or so; but the classes likely to be imprisoned under this Act were not criminal classes. He doubted whether many people would be imprisoned for having rifles or revolvers, for he did not believe there were many rifles or revolvers in Ireland. The Government had produced no Statistics on that point, although they must have had information as to the number of those arms which had been imported into the country. He felt equally confident that those people who did possess arms

    631
    would not allow themselves to be convicted and subjected to three months' imprisonment. In all probability the persons who would be convicted would be farmers who would either forget that the Act was in operation, and so would not give up their gulls, or would keep them by stealth in order to gratify their desire to shoot ground game and birds on their own lands. [An hon. MEMBER: Landlords.] The hon. Member must recollect that there had never been so few landlords shot as during the last year. What would happen would be that many farmers would be tempted by the natural desire to shoot game and birds, not to give up their arms, and if that was not a moral offence, it could not be denied that the offences created by the Act were political offences. In fact, it was the political condition of the country that had compelled the Government to set aside the natural right of men to carry arms for their own protection under the Constitution. Under the Prisons Act of 1877, misdemeanants were divided into two classes, one class being treated as firstclass misdemeanants. The offence created by the new Act was lower in degree than that of misdemeanour, for which special prison treatment of a very lenient character had been provided; and he claimed the right to special treatment of the persons to be imprisoned. The Act suspending the Habeas Corpus gave ample power for dealing with the criminal classes; but the people likely to be arrested under the new measure were respectable farmers, and he asked the Government whether they wished to turn every farmer or farmer's son into a rebel or a landlords' assassin? It seemed to him that the very way to do that would be to send them to prison for three months, and put them on plank beds. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the matter, and also to consider the desirability of annexing to the Bill a similar provision to that attached to the Coercion Act, giving the Lord Lieutenant power to make such rules as he might think fit as to the treatment of the prisoners. He observed that the dietary for prisoners sentenced to three months' imprisonment was a very low one; that might be right for the criminal classes, but it could scarcely be right to provide such a dietary for persons who had not
    632
    really committed any offence against the ordinary law, but only against this special Act. He would also ask him to give some assurance that he would consider the point before Report, with a view to enabling the Lord Lieutenant to make special rules when he came to ascertain the class of persons arrested.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The question of plank beds is extremely deserving of consideration; but I must point out that it was considered in reference to prison discipline, and not in reference to any particular Act or particular offence. It is quite true that there are a great number of different offences varying very much in their gravity. In this case, there is an Act referred to of a character not very dissimilar—namely, the Explosives Act, under which a person guilty of an offence causing injury by explosives, is liable to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding six months. That is double the penalty inflicted under this Act, and in that case no special provisions were made. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has appealed to what was done in the last Act we have passed for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus; but that was an utterly dissimilar Act. It was an Act——
    MR. CALLANrose to Order, and asked whether the Rules laid down by the Speaker were to be carried out or not?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is going beyond the point of explanation to which he is entitled to go.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he remembered exceedingly well being associated with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in opposition to the Prisons Act; but he had been compelled to tell that hon. Member that he conducted that opposition in so factious a manner that he was obliged to abandon him.
    MAJOR NOLANrose to Order. Had this anything to do with the subject before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The observation of the hon. Member did not reach me.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was strictly following the hon. Member. He fully concurred in the argument of the Secretary of State, that offences under this Act could not be classed strictly

    633
    with the offences under the Act for the Protection of Person and Property; and he considered it absurd to suppose that all the offences under this Act could be dignified with the name of political offences. If all the offences under this Act were to be considered political, the plank bed would be a political punishment; and he was tempted to ask whether it would not be appropriate, looking at the condition of discipline in the House, to have plank beds in the Clock Tower?
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONregarded this as a matter deserving of grave consideration. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had himself said so; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider what appeared to be his determination, and to bring up on Report some provision to meet the case. The object of punishment, where punishment was intended, was to reform, not to torture prisoners. Who were to be the offenders under this Act? Not the criminal classes, but people of a totally different class. The right hon. Gentleman had said that great consideration had been shown to the persons likely to be arrested under the Act recently passed, because they were to be treated as first-class misdemeanants; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a similar provision into this Bill. He admitted that it was very inconvenient in a Bill of this kind to go into the details of prison discipline; but at the same time they must not lose sight of the fact that this Bill, whether it was a political measure or not, was an exceptional measure. It would restrict the liberty of the subject, and subject men to punishment and forfeiture of their property for certain acts or omissions. That being so, it seemed to him by no means inconsistent, but in point of fact a necessary result, that they should make such provision that the persons imprisoned should not be placed in the position of the criminal classes. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman was not able to bring up some such provision on Report, he would suggest that the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment should withdraw it, seeing that it was objected to as going into the details of prison discipline, and then he himself would propose to insert after the word "but" the words "persons imprisoned under this Act shall be treated as first-
    634
    class misdemeanants." That did not go into prison discipline, or prescribe the kind of bed to be used; it simply placed the persons arrested among a particular class for whom under the Prisons Act a particular course of treatment was provided.
    MR. TOTTENHAMobserved, that a great deal had been said about the brutality of using plank beds, but it was forgotten that every soldier on guard slept on a plank bed. If the feelings of persons who had committed political or criminal offences were to be considered, he thought the feelings of soldiers should be also considered.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that every Commission that had reported on the subject had reported that nothing wore soldiers out so much as going on guard, and a General Order had been issued that whenever a soldier had to go on guard more than one night in seven a special report must be made. What was now proposed was that prisoners should sleep on plank beds every night.
    MR. SEXTONobserved, that the hon. Member had also forgotten that a soldier joined the Army of his own free will, which was a very material difference. He would, however, counsel his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon.) With regard to this question of punishment, he was not altogether of the opinion of his hon. Colleagues. He did not see that there was much advantage in lenient treatment, because it worked two ways. A magistrate might sentence a man to three months' imprisonment, if he was going to have a good time; but if the man was to be worked hard, he might give him a shorter sentence. A magistrate would be like to consider whether the man was likely to be treated hardly or not, and, therefore, he did not attach the same importance to the point under this Bill as under the Coercion Act.
    MR. LEAMY, on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to insert the words "Persons imprisoned under this Act should

    635
    be treated as first-class misdemeanants."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not wish to prolong this discussion. I have already stated the reasons why we think there is no ground whatever for distinguishing these offences from those tried by summary jurisdiction. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANregretted the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, and assured the Committee that the Bill would strike not the class aimed at—for they would elude it—but the young countrymen whom the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to strike hard. As an instance of this, he would inform the Committee that under the last Arms Act, when some members of the Catholic Young Men's Association were playing private theatricals at Tullamore, the police jumped on the stage because some of them carried swords as part of their characters, and carried them off to prison. That was the action of the magistates and the police, and not of the Lord Lieutenant at Dublin Castle acting on reasonable suspicion. It was the local Pashas who would have the administration of the Act. This was a Bill for disarming the country on political considerations; but the Committee should take into account that, after all, the offences that might have to be punished would not involve that moral criminality which had to be stamped out by severe discipline. With regard to plank beds, he protested against their being used in any prison. It was a system of torture, and he put it to the Committee and to the Treasury whether it ought to be inflicted upon young countrymen. The accomplished rogue and prison criminal was up to all the artifices by which to accustom himself to prison discipline, and even to the plank bed. The casehardened criminal had means of eluding all those things that were so cruelly hard on the man who went to prison for the first time. There was a story of a man who had been ill prison frequently, and who advised a gentleman of whom he was begging, if ever he was sent to the treadmill to tread "slantwise," and then it would not hurt him so much.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYpointed out that although the Secretary of State
    636
    for the Home Department said he saw no reason for distinguishing offences under this Bill from those dealt with by summary jurisdiction, the Bill did make a distinction, for it carefully provided against the infliction of hard labour on the men who might be imprisoned. Why was that distinction made? Because everyone felt that there was a real distinction between this offence and a criminal offence. The Bill provided that people who contravened the Act should be subjected to a short term of imprisonment, and the Irish Members asked the Government to go a step further, and prevent the use of these beds as an instrument of torture which might be applicable to criminals, but was certainly not applicable to persons whom they protected from the ordinary prison discipline. It was, therefore, proposed that prisoners under the Bill should be treated as first-class misdemeanants. He asked the Committee to look how this matter grew. The plank bed was introduced for the first time into Irish prisons by the late Administration, and its introduction provoked remonstrances from the most respected Judges in the country. It caused barbarities that he had no doubt had greatly intensified the hatred which had existed in Ireland within the last few years against the British Government. One reason why that hatred had become intensified was because of the harsh manner in which the Prisons Bill was carried through the House of Commons, and, as he had said, the introduction into the prison discipline of Ireland of the plank bed. The Home Secretary now told them that because they had done this evil thing, because they had introduced a thing which was not known to the law before, they were precluded from providing safeguards as to the penalties that were to be inflicted for contravention of the Act. Well, he would address one word of warning to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Radical Members. They knew perfectly well that these Coercion Acts were not popular in the country; and if there was one thing that would strike a deadly blow at Radicalism and a Liberal Government, it was the belief throughout the country that those professing extreme Liberal principles were silent when questions affecting the torture of prisoners were being discussed in this

    637
    House. If the Radical Members could bring themselves to give prisoners plank beds, he would say to them—"Why do not you give them spiked beds at once?" He would not, however, discuss this question of plank beds, for he was inclined to believe, from what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, that he was in favour of mitigating the horrible prison discipline introduced by the last Government. He must warn the Radical Members on that side of the House that if they would not have the courage of their convictions and support the Amendment, as they had protested against the introduction of plank beds by the late Government, they would justly lose the respect of the people of England. He trusted that even right hon. Gentlemen who were now ensconced on the Treasury Bench would be consistent, and on this occasion would support a principle of humanity in prison discipline, as they had so rightly done when in Opposition.
    MR. CALLANremembered the discussion on the Prisons Bill, and recollected the indignant speeches made by hon. Members sitting on that side, not against the introduction of the measure, but against the prison discipline which now prevailed; and these protests were made not on behalf of men of high character, such as those who would be affected by this Bill, but on behalf of felons. The Radicals of that day—when in Opposition—objected to the application of plank beds to felons. Would they now have the courage of their convictions, and object to the application of plank beds to gentlemen who were probably as respectable and as good citizens as they were themselves?
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that, before the division, he wished to say a word with reference to the statement that had been made, that this was not a convenient time to bring forward this question of prison discipline; but when the Prisons Bill was passing through the House in 1877, they had raised the question of the treatment of prisoners who might be arrested for offences under a Coercion Act in Ireland, and they were told by the then Home Secretary and the Government that the time for raising the question of the treatment of prisoners under an exceptional measure of that kind would be when that measure was brought forward. An Amendment that
    638
    he had himself moved in Committee on the Prisons Act of 1877, with reference to the treatment of prisoners arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, was, on a division, rejected by the Committee, on the ground that the time had not arrived to consider the question.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 194: Majority 147.—(Div. List, No. 125.)
    MR. PARNELLtrusted the Government would now agree to report Progress. The Committee had made very satisfactory progress, and it could not be denied that a sufficient portion of the day had been devoted to the measure.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the Committee will not consent to this proposal, but that they will make an attempt to get through with the Bill. There is very little of it left, and having carefully examined into the questions remaining to be discussed, I can answer for it that there is only one—that there are certainly not more than two—questions of any importance left upon the Paper. We have Clause 5 to finish, then the Definition Clause, then the short title, and then the last clause as to the duration of the Bill. The Government have endeavoured fairly to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite, and have discussed every point they have raised, and we should not be called upon to leave a small fragment of the Bill to occupy a Wednesday Sitting, when we have been informed by the Prime Minister that there is hardly time to obtain those Votes in Supply which are absolutely necessary. We have not been able to give our assent to all the Amendments which have been proposed; but we have dealt with them, as I think hon. Members will admit, fairly, and I therefore trust hon. Members will endeavour to meet us, and will, in the interest of Public Business, allow us to make further progress with the Bill. I do think, if the Committee is inclined, it can dispose of every question remaining in the course of an hour, and surely it is worth

    639
    while sitting that short time for the sake of saving a day.
    MR. SEXTONhad no doubt the Irish Members would be willing to go on for another hour; but he must say that anyone who carefully looked at the Paper would see that there were several very important questions remaining which could not be disposed of in that time. There was a proposal for giving a right of appeal against the decision of the Court of First Instance, and there was another question which of itself might take several hours to discuss; in fact, he believed that if they proceeded to debate it now they would not have finished by the time daylight arrived—he referred to the question of the duration of the Bill, as to whether the people of Ireland should be deprived of their arms for five years. In addition to several Amendments of the Irish Members on this point, there was one put down by an eminent Supporter of Her Majesty's Government to limit the duration of the Bill. Anyone who fairly considered the matter must see that the 8th clause could not be got rid of in an hour. So far as he was concerned, he had not the slightest desire to shirk work; but he considered it illusory to suppose that the discussion of the measure in Committee could be finished to-night.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that the Home Secretary appealed to them for another hour, and his appeal should be attended to—["Agreed!"]—but there were a number of unruly Members opposite who interrupted just as a proposal was being made. As the suggestion was being made that they should sit another hour, these unruly Members cried out, "No, finish!" At 1 o'clock in the morning these hon. Gentlemen told them that they must sit until 5 or 6. That was not the way to get hon. Members on that side to fall in with the proposition of the Home Secretary. He had no doubt Members would agree to exercise their staying-up powers if the Government would agree to report Progress—say, at 2 o'clock; but they should not be expected to finish, because that might necessitate their sitting up until mid-day to-morrow.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish the Committee to waste time in discussing this question of reporting Progress. He thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman should be accepted, that
    640
    they should go on for another hour; and then, at the expiration of that time, reconsider their position.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he had an Amendment to the effect that a person convicted under the Act might appeal according to the provisions prescribed by Section 24 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851. When the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) pointed out the other day that there was no provision in the Bill for appeals, as there was in the Act of 1875, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland stated, in reply, that no such provision was necessary, inasmuch as under the Summary Jurisdiction Act the right of appeal was given in certain cases. But he (Mr. Leamy) believed that under the Summary Jurisdiction Act there was only a right of appeal when the amount of imprisonment exceeded a month, or the amount of a fine 20 s. He proposed by this Amendment that a person should have a right of appeal against any conviction under the Act. He would point out that under the Summary Jurisdiction Act a right of appeal in England was given when there was imprisonment without the option of a fine; and the Home Secretary, when he brought in that measure, had stated that the Attorney General for Ireland would introduce a similar Bill, dealing with the Irish Law. That Bill, however, had never been brought in; therefore, before a man in Ireland could appeal, he must have been sentenced to something more than a month's imprisonment. Under the present Bill a right of appeal should be given in every case. Of course, people would not avail themselves of it where the evidence was clear against them; but he thought it only right, when they were constituting a political offence which did not exist in England, and did not now exist in Ireland, to give every facility for appeal.
    Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment,
    To insert the words "Every person who is convicted under this Act and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or to pay any fine or penalty, may appeal against such conviction; every such appeal shall be brought in the manner and shall be subject to the provisions prescribed by and contained in Section 24 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, with respect

    641
    to appeals in the cases therein stated."—(Mr. Leamy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This Amendment is open to the objection I have stated more than once—namely, that it is treating the offence as a special one, to which the summary law applies. That is exactly what I object to. The law prohibits certain things to be done, and if those things are done, when they are not of a very grave and heinous character, they are judged summarily. In cases of summary conviction, an appeal is given whenever the penalty is considered a severe one. The appeal in Ireland is under the 24th section of the Act of 1851—an appeal, as the hon. Member has stated, whenever the punishment exceeds one month's imprisonment, or a fine of 20 s. That rule is applied to all summary convictions in Ireland, and I can only repeat—and I shall be wasting the time of the Committee if I go into the matter at greater length—that I see no reason why this offence should be treated on a different footing from any other breach of the law of the Crown. It has been said—"Why do not you make special provision in this Act, as you would in the case of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act?" But under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act the cases are cases of suspicion, not eases of proved offences against the law. Where you have got certain proved offences against the law, there you have got certain penalties to follow. Where you make an exceptional offence, and where you exercise exceptional powers, you should have exceptional treatment.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, there was one matter which should never be forgotten in imposing punishment, and that was, the effect which that punishment might have not only upon the offender himself, but upon others besides the offender. Of course, the only object of punishment was to prevent the commission of crime. But if, under this Bill, there was to be a conviction without an appeal, the person who was convicted would have a large number of sympathizers; and by this means, in creating sympathy for the offender, a conviction without an appeal would to some extent frustrate the object of the Bill. In an ordinary case,
    642
    when a man was convicted of some offence against society or order, he received no sympathy. A man convicted of being drunk, or of poaching, or of any of the hundred and one offences in which a magistrate could impose a summary penalty, there was no body to sympathize with him, and no one felt hurt because he had no means of revising the decision of the magistrate and of rehabilitating his character. But under this Bill the money penalty would not be all. The convicted person would lose his character and status, and a stigma would attach to him that would always remain. Therefore, having regard to the possibility of convicting an innocent person, there were several things of an evil character which ought to be considered. This was an offence which really was no offence at all, but was created a political offence under an exceptional Act of Parliament. People would not recognize the offence dealt with by the Bill as any offence at all; and therefore everything should be done, in the case of secondary offences of this kind, not to produce dissatisfaction with the Government. Under these circumstances he pressed upon the Government the necessity of allowing an appeal. Judging from experience of ordinary cases of summary conviction, both in England and Ireland, the number of appeals would not be very great, probably not more than one in 4,000 or 5,000 convictions. This he believed was about the proportion now, and he did not think the proportion would be increased in regard to convictions under this Act. There would be very little extra labour thrown upon the Public Prosecutor, who would have to defend the decision of the magistrates, and the amount of trouble thrown upon the Executive would be so exceedingly small that it was scarcely worth considering, compared with the large amount of satisfaction which would be given by this concession to the feeling and just claims of the Irish people.
    MR. MARUMpressed upon the Government the importance of making this concession. A great deal had been said about the constitution of the magistracy. It was not necessary to impute corruption to anyone; but the sectarian and political character of the appointments were important elements in the consideration of the matter, and had at various times engaged the attention of

    643
    the House. In a country where a kind of social line was drawn between the landlords and tenants, it would be found that the magistrates were almost solely composed of the landlord class, and there was a feeling abroad in Ireland—whether true or false he would not pause to inquire—that these Coercion Acts were intended to be used for the recovery of rent. There was a strong impression throughout the country that these Coercion Acts partook of that character, and that this was their ultimate design and object. Looking at the matter in this light, he thought it was very objectionable that there should be no appeal against the decision of the magistrates. He had no desire to impute any want of impartiality to the magistrates; but, nevertheless, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he thought the Government might reasonably make the concession in deference to the feeling of the Irish people. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) said that appeals would not be very frequent. That was quite true; but, nevertheless, it was right that the opportunity for appeal should be given, so that questionable decisions might be reviewed in the Superior Court. Such a provision would have a most salutary influence, and he was bound to say that if there were to be summary convictions, under the peculiar circumstances of the country, where the antagonism between the landlords and tenants was so strong, and where there was such a large amount of social feeling in the country, it would be unfair to leave the conviction by the magistrates without an appeal. It must be borne in mind that the appeal would not only be heard before the Chairman of the county, but before all the magistrates belonging to the county, except the magistrate who decided in the first instance. Therefore, he trusted if Her Majesty's Government had not made up their minds definitely upon the point that they would give way to the general voice of the country. He would not have intruded himself in the debate if he had not thought that this was very important—in fact, was one of the most important Amendments that had been submitted during the whole consideration of this Coercion Bill. He was strongly of opinion that they ought not to allow summary conviction without an appeal.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had characterized the offence dealt with by the Bill as one of a simple character, analogous to those which were dealt with by a summary conviction under the ordinary law. He wished to point out what had been the course of procedure in other Bills. The Bill of 1875 stated that it should be lawful for the justices, if they thought fit, and if the prisoner so charged should desire, to adjudicate summarily. This Bill gave the prisoner no option; but he was bound to submit to the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and if convicted he had no appeal. It would consequently be seen that by the Act of a Conservative Government the case could not be specially dealt with except at the desire of the prisoner; and even in that case the person specially convicted could not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one month. When that Coercion Bill was before the House in 1875, the late Member for the County of Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) moved that an appeal should be given in the matter. He (Mr. Callan) was glad to see the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his place, for the right hon. Gentleman spoke on that occasion; and what did he say? The Bill of 1875 only dealt with a prisoner who desired to be tried by a magistrate, and the argument used against giving the power of appeal was, that if he had not so consented to be tried by the justices they would not have been able to deal with the case, and he would have to go before a jury. The Chief Secretary pointed out that the legislation altogether was of an exceptional character. So was this; but the right hon. Gentleman thought, if an appeal was given where a man was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and a day, it ought not to be refused where the term of imprisonment was only one day less. The right hon. Gentleman could not see why, where a man elected one of two modes to be tried, he should be deprived of the right of appeal. And how was that speech upheld by the votes of right hon. and hon. Members who were Members of Her Majesty's present Government? Going back to the Division List of 1875, and not speaking of the rank and file, but only of the Government, he found the first name among, those who voted in favour of giving tho power of appeal, was that of the Hon. Evelyn Ashley;

    645
    then came that of Mr. Campbell Bannerman, followed by the two Liberal Whips, Captain A. D. Hayter and Mr. C. Cotes. Then came the Right Hon. W. E. Forster. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would go into the Lobby with them on this occasion, and that he would not vote, now that he was in power, differently from the way in which he voted when in Opposition. Amongst the other names were those of the present Attorney General for England, Sir Henry James, and the popular Member for Chelsea, Sir Charles Dilke. Those wore all Members of the present Government, who, in 1875, not only denounced the Conservative Government who were then sitting on the Treasury Benches, but were against them for presuming to exclude the power of appeal. It must be remembered that, in 1875, the Bill proposed that no man should be subjected to summary jurisdiction, except with his own consent. Here, in 1881, the consent was not asked for. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland desired to be trusted or respected in Ireland, he ought to follow up the vote which he conscientiously gave, in 1875, in favour of not taking away the power of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to allow it to be said that he held a different principle when out of Office from that which he held as a salaried officer of a tyrannical Government.
    MR. HEALYthought it would be necessary to report Progress if the Government declined to accede to the Amendment. The discussion was certainly being carried on with the House in a state of extreme lassitude, and with the Chief Secretary for Ireland unable, owing to his sleepiness, to give much attention to the matter. The proposal to give the person convicted under the Act the power of appeal was a most important one. The Bill obliterated trial by jury in Ireland for this particular offence. It was specially stated that the proceedings would be by summary jurisdiction. Therefore, trial by jury was abolished, and the only person before whom those unfortunate men would have to disprove the charge made against them was a landlord magistrate. Yet the Government were now going to deprive the accused of any chance of appeal from the decision of the magistrate. It ought to be remem-
    646
    bered that an ample check was already imposed on the right of appeal by the expense which attended the exercise of it; and there was no reason, therefore, why the Government should shrink back in horror from the proposal to allow a man to have his case revised. A poor man could not appeal, simply because he would not have the money; and what was now proposed was also to deprive the man of the opportunity who had the money, and who wished to appeal. Nor should it be forgotten that the only tribunal by whom the accused had the chance of being tried was composed of the persons most opposed to him—namely, the local magistrates of the county. Seeing that the right of trial by jury was abolished, it was not too much to ask that the right of appeal should be conceded, especially when it was shown that in 1875 they had the Attorney and Solicitor General and all the Whigs going into the Lobby against the Tories in favour of an Amendment expressed in these very terms. Surely the Government were not going to swallow all their previous professions, and to give up their convictions because they happened to be in power. He would again impress upon the Committee that, as trial by jury was abolished, and as the landlords, who were the enemies of the people who were to be tried under the Act, and would also be the Judges to try them, the right of appeal ought to be granted.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: As the Act of 1875 has been alluded to, I wish to remind the Committee that there is a difference between that Act and the present Bill. According to that Act a justice, if he thought fit, might send a prisoner for trial, and he would then be liable to be imprisoned for one year. The punishment under the present Bill cannot be more than three months' imprisonment. This, I think, makes a very material difference, and the proposal now made to bring these cases under the Summary Jurisdiction Act is to the advantage of the prisoners themselves.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had had the courage at last to break his long silence. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) presumed that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated the shame by the silence he

    647
    had been observing after the dirty work in which he had been engaged.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is using an expression which is not courteous to another hon. Member of this House, and it must be withdrawn.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwould withdraw the expression at once. The right hon. Gentleman said there were differences between the Act of 1875 and the present Bill. No doubt, there were differences; but they were not differences that helped the right hon. Gentleman in the distinction he was endeavouring to draw. What was it that the Act of 1875 said? It said that it should be lawful for such justices, if they thought fit, and if the prisoner in charge should himself desire it, to deal with the case summarily. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: If the justices thought fit.] The right hon. Gentleman would have heard that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had read those words if he had paid any attention to him; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be too busily engaged in other matters. ["Order!"] He had certainly read "that it should be lawful for the justices, if they thought fit and if the prisoner desired it, to deal with the case summarily." The right hon. Gentleman, however, was too much immersed in his reminiscences to hear what was read. According to the Act of 1875, the prisoner could himself take part in the decision whether or not the magistrate could summarily deal with the case. This was pointed out by the Government at the time. He certainly wished that, so far as Ireland was concerned, they had as good a Government now. It was pointed out by the Government of that day that the prisoner had this right of himself taking part in the question whether or not there should be summary jurisdiction; and the Government then said—"Under those circumstances, what necessity is there for giving the right of appeal when you have given the prisoner the right of appeal already. You have said to the prisoner, 'Will you be summarily tried or not?' and if the prisoner says that he will be summarily tried, then you are bound by his decision." That was the argument put by the late Government; but up got the right hon. Gentleman who was now Chief Secretary and chief gaoler of Ireland. The education of the right hon. Gentleman was not com-
    648
    pleted by April 30, 1875, and he could see nothing in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucester (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, had reminded the Committee that the prisoner had the option of being tried at the Assizes, and that he could not be tried summarily by the magistrate unless with his own consent. The Government had followed the provisions of the Irish Petty Sessions Act; and, under the circumstances, he could not see the hardship complained of—that was to say, if the prisoner elected to be tried summarily rather than be sent to the Assizes, he had his choice. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in defending the refusalto give an appeal, said "it ought to be remembered that the cases referred to were those in which the prisoners accused consented to be tried before a magistrate, and if they so consented they must take the consequences. What was now proposed was a general exemption from the law, and he did not see any reason for the exemption, and he hoped the clause, therefore, would be left as it stood." Then up rose the champion of freedom, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who pointed out that "the legislation was altogether of an exceptional character, and that if an appeal were given when a man was sentenced to be imprisoned for a month and a day, it ought not to be refused where the imprisonment was only one day less." The right hon. Gentleman could see that it was right to grant an appeal when such an appeal was refused by a Tory Government, even in a case where the imprisonment was only for one month; but he did not see that it should be given now when the sentence of imprisonment was to be three months. The right hon. Gentleman thus answered the reasonable objections of the Tories of that day. They said that if a man was tried by a magistrate instead of being tried at the Assizes, it was by his own consent; but the present Chief Secretary for Ireland could see nothing in that. "He could not see," said the right hon. Gentleman, "that because a man elected one of two modes of being tried, that he should be

    649
    deprived of his right of appeal." The right hon. Gentleman had not swallowed enough of buckshot at that time, and hence these arguments. [Loud cries of "Order!"] He really must appeal to the Chair for protection. He was not at all astonished that his observations should not be altogether satisfactory to the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends below the Gangway. Who were the hon. Members who voted in 1875 in favour of an appeal? The first name was that of the right hon. W. Patrick Adam, the right hon. Gentleman they had just sent to Madras. Then came the name of Mr. George Anderson. [Cries of "Question!"]
    MR. CALLAN: I really must call upon you, Sir, to preserve Order. There are hon. Members here who are interrupting the speaker.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There are certainly interruptions; but I think they proceed from impatience of the great detail entered into by the hon. Member for Galway.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought that he was perfectly within his right in referring to the conduct of hon. Members in that House on a former occasion; and he asked for encouragement, rather than discouragement, when attention was called to the persistent and wilful obstruction that was being placed in his way. Among other names were those of Mr. Evelyn Ashley and Mr. G. O. Trevelyan; indeed, the Division List included the names of all of the most distinguished Members of the Liberal Party. Probably those hon. Members had since been stilled and lulled by the magic eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the present chief gaoler of Ireland.
    MR. PULLEY: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, if the language of the hon. Member is respectful towards a right hon. Member of this House?
    THE CHAIRMAN: This Assembly is an Assembly composed of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and the illustrations given by an hon. Member, in the course of his speech, should be of such a nature as to be courteous, and not to hurt the feelings of any hon. Member.
    MR. HEALYdid not think that the language of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was more calculated to hurt the feelings of any hon. Member than it was to charge an hon. Member, as had
    650
    been done, with encouraging treason and assassination.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, who rose amid cries of "Withdraw!" said, he did not intend to withdraw any observation he might have made; and he should, therefore, proceed at once with his observations. He found that the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman proved to be convincing to many of his Colleagues. The present Bill was exceptional in every respect, and treated as a crime an act which had hitherto been declared to be perfectly innocent. From that auspicious day when, for the light of mankind and the humiliation of Home Rulers, the present Government came into Office, up to that night, they had declared the carrying of arms to be a perfectly innocent and safe transaction in Ireland. This offence was, therefore, novel, and was, moreover, to be brought before the tribunals in Ireland in the midst of the novel and abnormal state of feeling which existed there. He would not go into the feelings which divided classes in Ireland at the present moment; but everybody must acknowledge that this had been brought about by some cause which had left a chasm of hate behind. It was, then, in this feverish state of feeling that Her Majesty's Government denied to tenants brought before magistrates the right of appeal, on which the right hon. Gentleman was so convincingly eloquent when he sat in the cold shade of Opposition. If this Bill had been brought in by a Conservative Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman, in his opposition to it, would either have startled the House by the magnificence of his eloquence, or melted it into tears by the force of those appeals which he was in the habit of addressing to that Assembly. In the right hon. Gentleman they had either a Fouché or a Tartuffe.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: He would again impress on the Committee, in the interests of the magistrates in Ireland, quite apart from that of the tenants, the advisability of not giving them this enormous power unchecked by the Bill in the present excited state of feeling. The arguments quoted from the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland were convincing upon this subject, and ought

    651
    to be more convincing than anything else with hon. Members opposite if they had not already departed from their principles.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the Government should, at all events, agree to make the law of appeal, in case of conviction under this Bill, similar to what it was in England. He found that, under the English law of summary jurisdiction, in cases of imprisonment without the option of fine, there was an appeal to the Quarter Sessions against such convictions. But the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) went a little further than that, and asked that there should be an appeal whether the sentence was one of imprisonment without the option of a fine or not. What objection could the Government have to making the law of appeal, under this Bill, similar to the law of appeal under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of England? By right, the whole law of summary jurisdiction in Ireland should be assimilated to that in England. During the last Parliament he had given Notice of opposition to the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, on the ground that he wished to have its provisions extended to Ireland. His wish, however, was resisted, and he was told that it was impossible to include Ireland in that Act. But the Government promised that, at some future time, the law of summary jurisdiction in Ireland should be assimilated to that of England, and, upon that condition, and seeing that the Act included several provisions of a merciful and humane character with regard to summary jurisdiction in England, his opposition was withdrawn. But no attempt had since been made to assimilate the law as between England and Ireland. Therefore, he now asked the Government to give to Ireland the same power of appeal that existed in England from the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in cases where a person might be sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. If Her Majesty's Government would give this right as a compromise between the proposal of his hon. Friend and the position taken up by them, he suggested that the Amendment might be withdrawn, part of its substance having been obtained. But if the Government refused, he said they stood doubly convicted of the inconsistency charged against them by his
    652
    hon. Friend the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor).
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had declared, upon a recent occasion, that nobody was more willing than himself to see justice done as between the two countries. He (Mr. Dawson), therefore, asked him to accede to the request now made for equal laws with regard to appeal. As had been pointed out by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), Irish Members, so far from opposing the English Summary Jurisdiction Act, had heartily assented to it, on the promise that the law of the two countries should be assimilated. Were Irishmen always to listen to speculative language that promised everything to Ireland only to be afterwards repudiated? He trusted the Government would take the view of the case suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYwas surprised to find that no Member of the Government rose to answer the very moderate appeal made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Seeing there was so much disposition to enter upon the path of compromise and conciliation, he could not help thinking that it would rather conduce to the passage of the Bill in a reasonable time, and with reasonable Amendments, if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would find some sphere of duty for the present away from the House, and would trust the Bill entirely to the hands of his right hon. Colleague the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was afraid, however, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland rather prided himself upon that kind of firmness which consisted in refusing all concessions when once a particular measure had been introduced. It was strange that during the discussion of the Amendment he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had heard no arguments in its favour so strong as those which had been drawn from the speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman himself a few years ago. There could be no reason why a man about to be sent to prison for three months should not have the same right of appeal as if he were to be imprisoned for 12 months. He asked hon. Members to reflect on the great difference between the magistracy

    653
    of the two countries. He believed it was a fact that in some places in Ireland where the population was entirely Roman Catholic there was not a single Roman Catholic magistrate; and he asked, was not that fact alone ample reason why an appeal should be granted to a higher class of Judges? The Secretary of State for the Home Department more than once that evening had endeavoured to lean upon the statement that there was nothing exceptional in this Bill; but he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) could imagine with what effect the right hon. Gentleman, were he inclined to do so, could show the absurdity of that argument. The Bill was exceptional in its object, in its mode of introduction, and in the rate at which it was being passed through the House. It did, in effect, create a new set of offences, and made many things crimes which were perfectly innocent up to the passing of the Bill. Everyone would admit that it was a moral offence, even if the law did not say so, to keep a great mass of explosive substance in some place where it might be destructive to human life. But it was not a moral offence for a man to carry a pistol, or a bullet, or a percussion cap in his pocket. Those things were, however, made, for the first time, offences under this Act. If the reason for this was that the Government believed the political condition of Ireland to be so dangerous as to render exceptional measures necessary, was not that an additional reason why appeal should be given from the decision of a class of magistrates who were, for the most part, in antagonism with the people in both interest and feeling, and who were liable to act in many cases in the spirit of partizanship? He thought if the Committee would consider the Amendment in this light they would see that it was most reasonable and just, and that the compromise suggested by the hon. Member for Cork City was one which the Government should not only be willing, but glad to accept.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that considering the value of time, especially to the Government, he was surprised at their hesitation to give some indication of their state of mind with reference to the compromise offered by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. So far as he (Mr. Sexton) could follow the line of argument of the right hon. Gentleman, he had urged upon Irish Members the pro-
    654
    priety of allowing trials and convictions under the Act to follow the general rule of law. It would appear, therefore, that the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork should have commanded the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman. His hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) would give the right of appeal existing in England to persons convicted in Ireland, and sentenced, on conviction, to imprisonment without the option of a fine. In cases where the option of a fine was allowed, he did not insist on the right of appeal; but when the liberty of a person was taken away, the accused would, if the proposal were accepted, have the right of being brought before a tribunal for appeal. If there were any case in which the right of appeal should be conceded, he said it was in those which would be created by this Act. The present agitation had arisen out of a great social and political movement in Ireland which had excited dangerous feelings between classes in that country; and it must be borne in mind that the application of this Act would fall generally into the hands of landlords, who were, to a certain extent, in a state of alarm and irritation. It would be before them, that under this Act tenants and labourers would be placed in the dock. He asked the Committee to consider the case of, say, two persons supposed to be members of a local branch of the Land League, brought before two landlords as magistrates; and he asked how those two magistrates could approach the case in a judicial frame of mind? It was, at least, extremely unlikely that they would do so. Therefore, because of the passions existing between these two classes of persons, the one administering the law, and the other being brought to the bar, it was necessary that the prisoner accused and convicted under such circumstances should have the right of bringing his case before a higher Court, which might be supposed to be elevated above the passions likely to interfere with the administration of justice. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had made a most useful reference to what had taken place upon the Act of 1875. Right hon. Gentlemen who now opposed were found to have been at that time most doughty defenders of the principles advocated by himself and his hon. Friends. It was surprising to find how much more tender was the

    655
    interest shown in caring for the liberty of an accused person under the Act of 1875 than in that now proposed by a Radical Ministry. The prosecution by indictment under the former Act would, at any rate, have given the prisoner the advantage of going before a Judge and jury, where the prejudice which would now be excited against him did not exist. Again, with regard to the procedure under the Act of 1875, it was provided that, if the justices thought fit, and if the person charged desired it, the charge should be determined summarily. That, he was entitled to say, rendered the wish of the accused a decisive element, from which it followed that unless a person desired it the charge could not be determined in a summary way. He thought he was also entitled to observe that if the accused person had expressed a desire to appeal, any justice would have been very slow in refusing it. The Acts, therefore, of 1875, passed by a Conservative Administration, displayed a liberal regard for the rights of accused persons, which was entirely and shamefully absent from the Act about to be passed by the most advanced champions of the liberties of the people. It was of the most extreme importance that the rights of prisoners should be defended in the present crisis. If the occupants of the Treasury Bench hoped to rule in Ireland by the affection and confidence of the general body of the people, how, he asked, could they expect to maintain their rule by passing such an Act as this? He could understand a Bill of the kind being brought in by the Tory Party, but that it should have been introduced by a Liberal Government was, to him, a matter of surprise. The people of Ireland did not think it any crime for a man to carry arms. The crime was entirely artificial. It had no moral attached to it; it was created for political purposes, and carried with it no stigma in the eyes of the people. The result of this legislation would be that they would watch with keen suspicion every case of a tenant brought before an Irish magistrate; and there could be no doubt that the refusal of every appeal would add fresh fuel to the fire now burning in Ireland.
    MR. PUGHsuggested that the Government should agree to the Amendment, if the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) would leave out the words "or to pay
    656
    any fine or penalty," so that the Amendment should relate only to convictions without the option of a fine, and then, on Report, provide for giving a prisoner the option of having his case tried before a jury. He did not see how hon. Members on that side of the House could vote for a provision which, without creating any new offence, was subjecting people to conviction without any appeal, no matter what the sentence might be.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN, in accordance with what the last speaker (Mr. Pugh) had said, would refer hon. Members to Clause 19 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, which enabled a prisoner who was imprisoned without the option of a fine to appeal to the Court of General or Quarter Sessions against such conviction; and he put it to the Committee whether, in the face of that section, they could refuse to give persons imprisoned under the new Act the right of appeal?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 123: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 126.)
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY moved to report Progress, observing that the Committee had discussed the Bill at very considerable length.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I feel it is no use prolonging this discussion any further now, and I quite agree with the hon. Member that we have discussed the Bill at considerable length.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) [COMPENSATION].

    COMMITTEE.
    MATTER considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of compensation for arms and ammuni-

    657
    tion voluntarily surrendered, in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the Preservation of the Peace in Ireland.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (URGENCY)—PEACE PRESER VATION (IRELAND) BILL—COM MITTEE.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg leave to give Notice, on behalf of the First Lord of the Treasury, or some other Minister of the Crown, to move to-morrow, that in Committee on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, this day at 3 o'clock, the remaining Clauses of the Bill, and any Amendments or new Clauses then standing on the Notice Paper, be put forthwith.
    MR. HEALYasked whether, in the event of there being a sufficient number of Divisions to occupy the time of the House up to the time during which Opposed Business was taken, the Divisions would be continued on Thursday; or, whether, at a quarter to 6 o'clock tomorrow all Divisions and everything else would then cease?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks me for instruction on a point of Order which has not arisen. When the question arises I shall be happy to instruct him.
    MR. CALLANasked whether, if, in consequence of the untoward event that had occurred that day, it was the intention of hon. Members of the House to draw attention to certain matters to which he need not specifically refer, it would be pertinent to them to bring those matters forward as matters affecting the rights and privileges of Members at the Sitting of the House to-morrow, or on Friday, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply? This was a question of great importance, affecting the rights and privileges and characters of more than one Member of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The question is not a question of Privilege; it is a question of Order; and if any hon. Member thinks proper to raise a question on the decision of the Chair, or of the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, he is at liberty to do so in the ordinary way.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that what he wanted to know was what, under the new Rules, would be the ordinary way?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can proceed in the ordinary way by Motion.
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Alkali, &c. Works Regulation (29–33).
ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION BILL.—(No. 29.)
(The Marquess of Huntly.)
ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION BILL.—(No. 29.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put in Committee, read.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, that before their Lordships went into Committee he desired to say a few words.

  535
  The evil with which the Bill dealt was a growing one. He had been informed on very good authority that the effect of the vapours from some works was felt six or seven miles away. This Bill was very much weaker than its predecessors. He had put some Amendments on the Paper, and had been strongly pressed, in case they should not be carried, to move the rejection of the measure on the third reading. He did not, however, intend to take that course, as he considered that there were some good points in it. He thought coke works should come under the Bill, and he desired to restore to the 2nd Schedule a number of works recommended by the Commissioners to be placed under inspection. The whole time of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors ought to be devoted to their work, they being paid in a sufficiently liberal manner. He was of opinion that the Reports should contain not only the opinions of the Chief Inspector, but those of the Sub-Inspectors also. There ought to be liability on the part of masters for the acts of their servants, and he could not understand why it was proposed by this Bill to alter that old law. After a great deal of consideration he had come to the conclusion that no Bill which did not contain a collective liability clause would be satisfactory. He had excellent authority for the belief that the test required by the Bill was less stringent than were those recommended by the Commissioners, and than those which were now in use in many establishments. That was a blot upon the Bill, and he certainly thought they ought to have as severe a test in the matter as was practicable. He would accept the Bill on the principle that half-a-loaf was better than no bread, and that "we ought to be thankful for small mercies," although he felt that it would not cure evils which might have been got rid of by a statesmanlike measure.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Condensation of acid gases in sulphuric acid works).
  VISCOUNT MIDELTONmoved, in page 3, line 22, after ("work") to insert ("and every coke work"), and in line 27, after ("acid") to insert ("or coke").
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he could not consent to the Amendment, which would make the clause too restrictive.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that as the Royal Commission recommended that there should be legislation in respect of coke ovens, he hoped the Government would in some way give effect to the recommendation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobserved, that the noble Viscount (Viscount Midelton) appeared to desire coke ovens to be subject to still more stringent provisions than had been recommended by the Commission. He thought the enormous volumes of black smoke emitted from them might be dealt with under the provisions of the Nuisances Act rather than by this Bill. If the coke ovens were placed in the clause, it would be utterly impossible, owing to the expense, for the proprietors to carry on business. If the House thought that there ought to be legislation in respect of coke ovens constructed in the future, it would be better to do that in another manner than that proposed in the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsuggested that coke ovens might be dealt with in the Schedule.
  VISCOUNT MIDELTONsaid, that, for the most part, the existing coke ovens were carried on by an almost bankrupt proprietary, and the sooner they were swept away the better. It was monstrous that they should continue to pollute the country and destroy vegetation because it would be expensive to manufacture coke if precautions were taken to prevent the escape of acid. The least he could consent to was a clause giving power to the Government to introduce future regulations.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, there were not a half-a-dozen towns in England where the local authorities could be induced to enforce the Smoke Nuisance Act, notwithstanding the frequently expressed public indignation of the inhabitants. If these authorities neglected their duty in this respect, some alternative ought to be provided. Under the new system of coke ovens, the damage done by the sulphurous fumes emitted was comparatively small; but by the old system the damage extended as far as half-a-mile, vegetation in that whole radius being injured. He did not

  537
  think the Amendment dealt with the coke oven question in the best way; but he hoped their Lordships would receive from the Government an assurance that they would make a proposal on the subject.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare), whether he would be satisfied if the new coke ovens were dealt with?
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that would be better than nothing; but it would hardly meet the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the Government would have no objection to consider the matter before the Report.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he would press his Amendment.
  On question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 28; Not-Contents 46: Majority 18.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  London, L. Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Abinger, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Cadogan, E. [Teller.]

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Lathom, E. [Teller.]

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Norton, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Tollemache, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Annaly, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Brabourne, L

  Bedford, D.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Somerset, D.

  Carrington, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Denman, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Derby, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Ducie, E.

  Granville, E.

  Foley, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Harris, L.

  Morley, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Spencer, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Aberdale, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  538

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Sandys, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Vernon, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Waveney, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 26, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 27 (Actions in case of contributory nuisance).
  LORD ABERDAREmoved to leave out the closing words of the clause, which were—
  "Notwithstanding that the act or default of such defendant would not separately have caused a nuisance."
  He did not see, when it was difficult to state with accuracy what part a person might have had in the creation of a nuisance, that he should be proceeded against separately. Copper and other works were excluded from this Bill, and would not be inspected. Consequently, though they might contribute to the particular nuisance, they would escape, while the inspected works would come within this clause. As Lord Justice Lush had laid down that any number of defendants might be included in the same action, there was already a means of recovering damages from every owner of an inspected works who contributed to the damage.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped that the Government would adhere to the words proposed to be left out of the Bill. There might be great annoyance caused to a large population which could not be traced to one single work, or to two works, or three works. He knew that in some places great injury was done to trees, houses, furniture, and animals without the owners being able to say more than that the injury came from such a district or such a town. This principle of collective liability was a feature absolutely necessary to give the Bill any salutary effect.
  THE EARL OF DERBYhoped the Government would not allow the words in question to be struck out, else the Bill would not be worth sending to the other House of Parliament.
  A noble LORDsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord

  539
  Aberdare), he should like to know whether, in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the regulations as to costs under the Judicature Act applied to County Courts dealing with actions under the present law?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would inquire into the matter; but he did not think it probable they would be applicable.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 33.)

INDIA—THE MILITARY ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WAVENEYinquired, When any further Correspondence on the Military Estimates of India will be presented in accordance with the assurance contained in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech at the opening of Parliament?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: In reply to my noble Friend, I beg to inform him that "further Correspondence on the Military Estimates of India" was presented to both Houses in January last. Some further Correspondence is now in course of preparation, and will be distributed in a few days. I may state, however, that, as far as we know up to the present date, there is no material alteration with regard to the Estimates as compared with those already presented.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.